Australia, Aug. 21 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 21:

1. HER HONOUR: By motion filed on 8 July 2025, the plaintiffs (AMP) sought an order under s 5B(1) of the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW) that lay witness, Craig Dainton, give evidence at trial by audio visual link via his laptop from an Air BnB in Sheffield, United Kingdom, called "The Piggery".

2. The 28 defendants (the insurers) are legally represented in four groups: the first and second defendants (Chubb), the third and co-represented defendants (AIG), the ninth and co-represented defendant (Allianz) and the tenth and co-represented defendants (Lloyd's). Chubb took the lead on this motion, as its senior counsel is tasked with cross-examining Mr Dainton. Lloyd's supported Chubb. AIG and Allianz neither consented nor opposed the motion, where they had left this task to Chubb.

3. AMP relied on the evidence of solicitor Katharine Cahill.

4. Nothing in what follows should be taken as any criticism of Mr Dainton, who has conducted himself in a perfectly reasonable manner. Nor is it a criticism of the plaintiffs as parties; they have presumably left the matters with which this judgment is concerned to their legal representatives.

Facts

5. AMP seeks $300 million from the insurers, under its professional indemnity policy. As to the underlying insurance claim, AMP and its financial planners provide advice to clients. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) began to investigate AMP, including in respect of what became known as the provision of 'fees for no service'. ASIC encouraged AMP to establish a remediation program, to compensate clients who had suffered loss as a result of receiving inappropriate advice or who had paid their adviser a fee without receiving advice.

6. In 2016, AMP established a remediation program (the Program) and proceeded to remediate clients, ultimately at a cost in some $800 million. In 2018, Mr Dainton became involved in the Program and had ultimate responsibility for its implementation. He oversaw a team of between 200 and up to 500 people.

7. AMP made a claim on its insurance in respect of the funds outlaid in the Program, up to the policy limit. The insurers declined indemnity. In April 2022, these proceedings were commenced. In December 2022, Ball J made directions for AMP to serve its lay evidence.

8. In May 2023, Mr Dainton left AMP's employ and began working for another insurer. Mr Dainton continued to provide assistance to AMP. Indeed, this is the fifth proceedings in which he has done so. Mr Dainton has given evidence in an earlier proceeding for AMP.

9. In June 2023, Mr Dainton made an affidavit for AMP in these proceedings. The affidavit comprises 38 pages and 151 paragraphs. Mr Dainton referred to some 130 documents in an exhibit. Mr Dainton described the Program, and how it worked, in detail. Mr Dainton described the remediation review methodology for 'fees for no service' cases or 'inappropriate advice' cases, including the practices, policies and processes deployed, as well as governance and oversight by Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers. As Mr Dainton described it, the Program was expected to cost some $2 billion and take more than 20 years to complete when he was enlisted to assist. He was responsible for a "reset" of the Program. Under his guidance, the Program ultimately cost some $800 million and was completed by 30 June 2021.

10. The parties progressively served their evidence. On 30 August 2024, the parties appeared before Ball J to take a hearing date. According to the transcript, AMP pressed for a hearing date in August 2025. There was some discussion as to when the parties should mediate, where AMP's legal representatives would be occupied by a hearing in separate proceedings for a particular period. The transcript does not mention the availability of witnesses. His Honour made an order for mediation and listed the matter for trial for three weeks commencing on 4 August 2025, and that is, roughly a year later.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1981c30fd74a684e034fd4cf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.