A Melbourne wedding venue that accessed public health advice through a freedom of information request to support its covid business interruption claim has lost its case before the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

The complainant said lockdown measures were ordered in several postcodes on July 1 2020 to address covid outbreak “hotspots”, including the functions centre’s suburb. It said the public health advice showed increasing cases and specific outbreaks then led to a July 8 metropolitan Melbourne lockdown.

It was “abundantly clear” decisions to impose restrictions and force the venue to close were made “as a result of” the outbreaks referenced, it said in seeking to establish a causal link.

“Relevant decision-makers within the Victorian government were provided with targeted advice of existing outbreaks at the relevant time and within the relevant insured radius, and then followed that advice accordingly,” the complainant argued.

But Lloyd’s Australia said the orders were general and intended to address the public health risk the pandemic posed.

AFCA was not satisfied hybrid clause policy triggers were met and said “in particular, none of the government orders referred to the centre or said they were being made as a result of” an outbreak within 20 kilometres of that premises.

Victoria initially imposed restrictions in March. On July 1, it ordered density quotas and restrictions on mass gatherings, weddings and funerals in specific postcodes. The expanded July 8 order closed non-essential businesses across metropolitan Melbourne.

AFCA, which has rejected a string of BI disputes centred on hybrid clauses, says it is guided by the Federal Court’s interpretation of policies in the industry test case.

“The panel does not find the complainant’s submissions on why AFCA should follow a different approach to that referred to in the second test case and appeal case judgments persuasive,” it said.

AFCA has also ruled out support for the claim from covid dispute findings in Victorian Supreme Court decisions concerning the Princess Theatre and the Transit pubs business.

The insurer was entitled to deny the claim because the complainant had not shown the closures of the centre were a result of the covid outbreak within a 20km radius of its premises, it says.

The decision is yet to be published on the AFCA website.