Amos v Brisbane City Council - [2005] QCA 433

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Amos v Brisbane City Council [2005] QCA 433

PARTIES:

EDWARD AMOS  (plaintiff/applicant)  v  BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL    (defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6933 of 2005  DC No 2281 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 November 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 November 2005

JUDGES:

Jerrard and Keane JJA and Muir J  Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – BY LEAVE OF COURT – COSTS ORDERS – applicant commenced proceedings in Magistrates Court for damages sustained by him when he tripped over a water valve on a Brisbane footpath – Magistrate found against applicant on liability and dismissed claim – Magistrate ordered applicant to pay respondent’s costs – applicant sought leave to appeal in District Court and was refused – applicant seeks leave to appeal under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) on the issue of costs

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – RULES OF CONSTRUCTION – WORDS TO BE GIVEN LITERAL AND GRAMMATICAL MEANING – WHERE MEANING AMBIGUOUS OR UNCERTAIN – PRESUMPTIONS AS TO LEGISLATIVE INTENTION – applicant contends under s 56 of Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) (“PIPA”) there is no power to award costs where claim under $30,000 and plaintiff unsuccessful – applicant contends purpose of PIPA is to create a ‘code’ for all personal injury litigation in Queensland and Magistrate had no power to award costs – whether legislature intended s 56 to provide a complete ‘code’ for the awarding of costs – whether courts’ powers to award costs in circumstances not explicitly dealt with by PIPA are removed

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – CONSIDERATION OF EXTRINSIC MATTERS – WHERE MEANING AMBIGUOUS OR UNCERTAIN – whether words of s 56 are ‘ambiguous or obscure’ – whether extrinsic material required to assist in section’s construction

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A, s 14B District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3) Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 56 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 325(1)

Charter Reinsurance Co Ltd v Fagan [1997] AC 313, cited CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1995-1997) 187 CLR 384, considered Jones v Wrotham Park Settled Estates [1980] AC 74, considered   Kingston v Keprose Pty Ltd (No 3) (1987) 11 NSWLR 404, cited Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, considered Vacher & Sons Ltd v London Society of Compositors [1913] AC 107, cited WACB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 210 ALR 190, considered

COUNSEL:

M Horvath for the appellant  R D Green for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Keller Nall & Brown for 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Amos v Brisbane City Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] QCA 433
Decision Date: 25 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amos sought leave to appeal the District Court’s refusal to grant leave to appeal against a decision of the Magistrates Court in which his claim for damages was dismissed and he was ordered to pay costs. The matter was heard in the District Court of Queensland. Amos contended that the District Court had no power to order him to pay costs as his claim was for less than $30,000 and he was unsuccessful, and that section 56 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) (“PIPA”) provides a ‘code’ for all personal injury litigation in Queensland which precludes the courts from awarding costs in circumstances not explicitly dealt with by the Act.

The court considered whether the legislature intended section 56 to provide a complete ‘code’ for the awarding of costs and whether the courts’ powers to award costs in circumstances not explicitly dealt with by PIPA were removed. The court also considered whether the words of section 56 were ambiguous or obscure and whether extrinsic material was required to assist in the section’s construction.

The court held that the legislature intended section 56 to provide a ‘code’ for the awarding of costs, but did not intend to remove the courts’ powers to award costs in circumstances not explicitly dealt with by PIPA. The court also held that the words of section 56 were not ambiguous or obscure and that extrinsic material was not required to assist in the section’s construction. The court dismissed the application with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed with costs

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:	Amos v Brisbane City Council [2005] QCA 433
PARTIES:	EDWARD AMOS (plaintiff/applicant) v BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL (defendant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6933 of 2005 DC No 2281 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	25 November 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 November 2005
JUDGES:	Jerrard and Keane JJA and Muir J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – BY LEAVE OF COURT – COSTS ORDERS – applicant commenced proceedings in Magistrates Court for damages sustained by him when he tripped over a water valve on a Brisbane footpath – Magistrate found against applicant on liability and dismissed claim – Magistrate ordered applicant to pay respondent’s costs – applicant sought leave to appeal in District Court and was refused – applicant seeks leave to appeal under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) on the issue of costs STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – RULES OF CONSTRUCTION – WORDS TO BE GIVEN LITERAL AND GRAMMATICAL MEANING – WHERE MEANING AMBIGUOUS OR UNCERTAIN – PRESUMPTIONS AS TO LEGISLATIVE INTENTION – applicant contends under s 56 of Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) (“PIPA”) there is no power to award costs where claim under $30,000 and plaintiff unsuccessful – applicant contends purpose of PIPA is to create a ‘code’ for all personal injury litigation in Queensland and Magistrate had no power to award costs – whether legislature intended s 56 to provide a complete ‘code’ for the awarding of costs – whether courts’ powers to award costs in circumstances not explicitly dealt with by PIPA are removed STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – CONSIDERATION OF EXTRINSIC MATTERS – WHERE MEANING AMBIGUOUS OR UNCERTAIN – whether words of s 56 are ‘ambiguous or obscure’ – whether extrinsic material required to assist in section’s construction Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A, s 14B District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3) Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 56 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 325(1) Charter Reinsurance Co Ltd v Fagan [1997] AC 313, cited CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1995-1997) 187 CLR 384, considered Jones v Wrotham Park Settled Estates [1980] AC 74, considered Kingston v Keprose Pty Ltd (No 3) (1987) 11 NSWLR 404, cited Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, considered Vacher & Sons Ltd v London Society of Compositors [1913] AC 107, cited WACB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 210 ALR 190, considered
COUNSEL:	M Horvath for the appellant R D Green for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Keller Nall & Brown for the…