SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1921 Supreme(SC) 36

Condogianis – Appellant
Versus
Guardian Assurance Company Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Still, Trower, Leese, Freshfields, C. Acquith, G. Lawrence, John Simon, Micklthwait, Keeling, Parkin , Clauson

Lord Shaw:-

This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Australia dated 19th June, 1919, allowing by a majority of two judges to one an appeal from the judgment of Hodges, J., in the Supreme Court of Victoria, dated 30th October, 1918. Isaacs, J., agreed with the judge of first instance; Barton and Gavan Duffy, JJ., from whom he dissented, decided to reverse.

The action, which was brought by the appellant as plaintiff, claimed a declaration that, under a policy of insurance of the defendant company, dated 1st March, 1918, that company was liable to pay him the loss sustained in consequence of fire which occurred on 17th April of that year and by reason of which a large part of the property insured was destroyed.

In the pleadings the defence was rested on a variety of grounds. At their Lordships' bar the learned counsel for the respondents stated that it was sufficient to rely upon one of these grounds, and that all the others might be taken as discarded. This ground was that two statements made in the proposal were untrue. One of these statements stood opposite the following, being a request for the "name in full, residence and occupation, of the person in


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top