Insurers lose COVID-19 “business interruption” test case

Lowe Lippmann Chartered Accountants

Insurers lose COVID-19 "business interruption" test case

Last week, a unanimous judgment from the New South Wales Court of Appeal, constituted by five judges, was handed down which ruled that certain insurance policyholders could be entitled to claim for COVID-19 related "business interruption" losses, when their business was forced to close due to the coronavirus pandemic.

 

At the outset, it is critical to note that this is the first of only a few Insurance Council of Australia test cases, and while the Insurers do not have an automatic right to appeal the case decision, they do have until mid-December 2020 to decide whether they believe they have grounds to apply to the High Court for special leave to appeal the decision.

 

Thus, there is a chance this decision can be challenged and potentially be overturned.

What was the case about exactly?

This specific test case concerned insurance policyholders who held cover for "business interruption" losses arising from an outbreak of infectious disease with a 20km radius of the insured premises, but which excluded " diseases declared to be quarantinable diseases under the Quarantine Act 1908 and subsequent amendments ".

 

The insurance policies in the test case mistakenly referred to the Quarantine Act 1908 , which was repealed in 2015, and replaced with the Biosecurity Act 2015.

 

The insurers have claimed this was clearly an error, and the intention of the policy was obviously to exclude a pandemic under any future legislation.   They argue the phrase "subsequent amendments" referred to any future legislation, not just amendments to the specific Quarantine Act 1908.

 

But the NSW court of appeal disagrees, deciding that the policy in question only protected insurers under the Quarantine Act 1908 , and the phrase " and subsequent amendments " referred to amendments to that act only.

What does this mean for other businesses impacted by COVID 19 related business interruptions?

This does not mean that all claims for COVID-19 related "business interruption" losses must now be paid.   However, it does mean that businesses holding insurance policies which were not updated when the Quarantine Act was repealed and replaced by the Biosecurity Act 2015 may have similar grounds to pursue a claim.

 

Furthermore, any other businesses (not party to this test case) would still need to prove that they had in fact experienced a COVID-19 outbreak, then they would also need to prove they suffered financial loss, and they suffered loss "as a result of" the COVID-19 outbreak.

While we are drawing your attention to this recent legal development which concerns the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, this Tax Alert does not constitute advice, and if this topic is relevant to your business we recommend you seek your own legal advice.

Please do not hesitate to contact your Lowe Lippmann Relationship Partner if you wish to discuss any of these matters further.

Tax Alert - High Court decision and ATO statement on Bendel’s Case

July 7, 2026
High Court decision and ATO statement on Bendel’s Case The High Court recently handed down its decision in Bendel’s Case, confirming that an unpaid present entitlement (or UPE) between a discretionary trust and a beneficiary company does not fall within the extended definition of a “loan” for Division 7A purposes. The Australian Taxation Office released a Decision Impact Statement in response to the High Court findings, concluding the High Court's reasoning makes it clear that where a beneficiary company is entitled to a share of trust income that remains unpaid (a UPE) and the company takes no positive actions to call for payment of the entitlement, this will not fall within the expanded definition of a "loan" for Division 7A purposes. This is in contradiction to the ATO’s historical position that treated UPEs as "loans".

Practice Update – July 2026

July 5, 2026
Government's tax reform package The Government has recently legislated several of the tax reform measures announced in the 2026 Federal Budget (and in later media releases). These include, among other things: Replacing the CGT discount with cost base indexation and a 30% minimum tax on gains accruing from 1 July 2027 (including gains on pre-CGT assets); Increasing the small business turnover threshold for the 50% active asset reduction from $2 million to $10 million; Limiting negative gearing for residential property to new residential dwellings from 1 July 2027 (subject to transitional rules); and Introducing the Working Australians Tax Offset from 1 July 2027, and the $1,000 instant tax deduction for work-related expenses from 1 July 2026. After a round of consultation, the Government has also announced further proposed measures, broadly including (among others): A new targeted CGT discount for investors in innovative start-ups; Barring SMSFs from utilising future limited recourse borrowing arrangements ( LRBAs ) to acquire residential property; and  Exempting income of discretionary testamentary trusts from the minimum tax proposed for trusts. We recently released a Tax Alert considering the legislation restricting SMSFFs using residential property LRBAs – to read click here . For full details of each of the 2026 Federal Budget announcements, please see our Federal Budget Tax Alert – to read click here .

Tax Alert - Legislation restricting SMSFs using residential property LRBAs has now passed Parliament

June 28, 2026
Legislation restricting SMSFs using residential property LRBAs has now passed Parliament The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No 1) Bill 2026 ( the Reform No 1 Bill ) was passed by Parliament on Thursday 25 June 2026. Schedule 5 of the Reform No 1 Bill amends section 67A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to restrict future limited recourse borrowing arrangements ( LRBAs ) on real property to investments in “business real property” (as defined in section 66 of the SIS Act). Residential property of any kind is excluded from the definition of “business real property” in section 66 of the SIS Act. We note this also excludes newly constructed residential property, which is a distinction at odds with recent exemptions being given to new-builds with other Budget Night tax changes relating to negative gearing and restricting the CGT 50% discount. Super funds are not generally allowed to borrow for investments, but there has been a concession allowing a self-managed super fund ( SMSF ) to borrow money to buy single assets like property, if their loans were set up in line with particular requirements, known as LRBAs. This change means an SMSF will not be able to borrow to buy residential property after the start date of these changes.
More Posts