AAI Limited v Caffrey - [2020] QCA 116

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

AAI Limited v Caffrey [2020] QCA 116

PARTIES:

AAI LIMITED
ABN 48 005 297 807
(appellant)
v
DAVID PAUL CAFFREY
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 1992 of 2019
SC No 6587 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Orders

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2019] QSC 7 (Flanagan J)

DELIVERED ON:

2 June 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Philippides and McMurdo JJA

ORDERS:

1. The order filed on 10 December 2019 is set aside.

2. The appeal is dismissed and the appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – COSTS – where the appeal concerned liability in negligence to rescuers generally and settled whether the respondent’s status as a police officer denied him a right to recover damages because of the effect of “policy considerations” – where the Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal – where the respondent furnished the Court with an outline of submissions contending that he should have his costs of the appeal assessed on an indemnity basis – where the appellant made no submissions to the contrary – where the litigation represented a test case on a matter of public interest – whether it is appropriate that costs be ordered on the indemnity basis

AAI Limited v Caffrey[2019] QCA 293, cited
Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc v Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd (1991) 100 ALR 568; [1991] FCA 154, cited
Borg v Northern Rivers Finance Pty Ltd[2005] QCA 250, cited
Commonwealth v McCormack (1984) 155 CLR 273; [1984] HCA 57, cited
Hall v WorkCover Queensland[2014] QCA 202, followed
L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [No 2] (1982) 151 CLR 590; [1982] HCA 59, cited
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11, cited
Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Brown [2005] 1 Qd R 204; [2004] QCA 325, followed

COUNSEL:

P Dunning QC, with D Schneidewin, for the appellant
M Grant-Taylor QC, with D Murphy, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the appellant
Sciacca’s Lawyers for the respondent

THE COURT: In this matter the Court[1] dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 10 December 2019. When publishing its reasons, Sofronoff P indicated that, in his view, the appeal should be dismissed with costs. Philippides and McMurdo JJA agreed.
[1]Sofronoff P, Philippides and McMurdo JJA.
At the time that he filed his written outline of submissions, the respondent had also filed a separate outline of submissions contending that, if the Court dismissed the appeal, he should have his costs of the appeal assessed on an indemnity basis. The appellant made no submissions to the contrary. The respondent’s written submissions about costs were overlooked when the Court’s reasons were published.
The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AAI Limited v Caffrey

Details

AGLC: AAI Limited v Caffrey [2020] QCA 116
Case: [2020] QCA 116
Decision Date: 2 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in AAI Limited v Caffrey was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appeal arose from a negligence claim where the respondent, a police officer, sought damages for injuries sustained while rescuing individuals from a vehicle fire. The respondent argued that despite his status as a police officer, he should not be precluded from recovering damages due to policy considerations. The appellant, AAI Limited, contested the liability and the entitlement of the respondent to damages. The central legal issues focused on whether policy considerations, due to the respondent’s status as a police officer, barred his recovery of damages and whether the case qualified as a matter of public interest warranting indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal addressed the merits of the appeal and the implications of policy considerations on the respondent’s right to recover damages. It held that the respondent, as a police officer, was not precluded from claiming damages for injuries sustained in the line of duty. The Court found that policy considerations did not automatically bar the respondent's claim, thus dismissing the appellant’s appeal on liability grounds. Regarding the costs, the Court considered the public interest nature of the litigation, classifying it as a test case. It deemed it appropriate to order the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis due to the significance of the case.

The Court set aside the previous order filed on 10 December 2019, dismissed the appellant’s appeal, and mandated the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis. This decision underscores the importance of recognising the rights of rescuers, including police officers, to seek compensation for injuries sustained in the performance of their duties, while also highlighting the Court’s discretion in awarding indemnity costs in cases of significant public interest.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The order filed on 10 December 2019 is set aside.

2. The appeal is dismissed and the appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	AAI Limited v Caffrey [2020] QCA 116
PARTIES:	AAI LIMITED ABN 48 005 297 807 (appellant) v DAVID PAUL CAFFREY (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 1992 of 2019 SC No 6587 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal – Further Orders
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2019] QSC 7 (Flanagan J)
DELIVERED ON:	2 June 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Philippides and McMurdo JJA
ORDERS:	1. The order filed on 10 December 2019 is set aside. 2. The appeal is dismissed and the appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – COSTS – where the appeal concerned liability in negligence to rescuers generally and settled whether the respondent’s status as a police officer denied him a right to recover damages because of the effect of “policy considerations” – where the Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal – where the respondent furnished the Court with an outline of submissions contending that he should have his costs of the appeal assessed on an indemnity basis – where the appellant made no submissions to the contrary – where the litigation represented a test case on a matter of public interest – whether it is appropriate that costs be ordered on the indemnity basis AAI Limited v Caffrey[2019] QCA 293, cited Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc v Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd (1991) 100 ALR 568; [1991] FCA 154, cited Borg v Northern Rivers Finance Pty Ltd[2005] QCA 250, cited Commonwealth v McCormack (1984) 155 CLR 273; [1984] HCA 57, cited Hall v WorkCover Queensland[2014] QCA 202, followed L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [No 2] (1982) 151 CLR 590; [1982] HCA 59, cited Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11, cited Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Brown [2005] 1 Qd R 204; [2004] QCA 325, followed
COUNSEL:	P Dunning QC, with D Schneidewin, for the appellant M Grant-Taylor QC, with D Murphy, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the appellant Sciacca’s Lawyers for the respondent