DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Amos v Veljkovic & another [2009] QDC 159
PARTIES:
SCOTT ROBERT AMOS
(Applicant)v
MILOSH VELJKOVIC
(Respondent)AND
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED ABN 1500 0122 580
(Second Respondent)FILE NO/S:
D384/07
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court Southport
DELIVERED ON:
18 June 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Southport
HEARING DATES:
1 June 2009
JUDGE:
Newton DCJ
ORDER:
Applicant’s action dismissed in terms of Registrar’s order of 26 October 2007.
LEGISLATION:
Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994
S57(2)(b)CASES:
Moga v AAMI [2008] QCA 79
Morrison-Gardiner v Car Choice P-L & Anor; Crain v Corcker & Anor; Odare v Vitanza & Ors [2004] QCA 480.CATCHWORDS:
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS – APPLICATION OF THE STATUTES TO PARTICULAR CAUSES OF ACTION - MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE – where applicant sought an extension of time under s57(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) within which to commence proceedings for damages as a result of personal injuries suffered in motor vehicle accident – where Registrar granted extension of time subject to conditions – whether applicant breached those conditions.
COUNSEL:
R Morgan for the applicant
R A I Myers for the first and second respondent
SOLICITORS:
Trilby Misso Lawyers for the plaintiff
Moray & Agnew for the first and second respondent
The applicant, Scott Robert Amos, sought leave to commence proceedings by an originating application filed on 9 August 2007, seeking to recover damages for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. The application was brought pursuant to s57(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994.[1]
[1] Section 57(2)(b) provides that the proceeding may be brought after the end of the period limitation if it is brought within a longer period allowed by the court.
A consent order was made by a Registrar on 26 October 2007 giving leave to the applicant to commence proceedings conditional upon the applicant providing, within 14 days of the consent order
(a) All PAYG payment summaries, pay slips, activity statements and all other relevant documents indicating the income of the applicant for the period since 30 June 1995 to the current date;
(b) A statutory declaration detailing the applicant’s employment history for the period since 30 June 1995 to the current date;
(c) Clinical notes for Dr P Somaia for the period since 1995 to the current date;
(d) A statutory declaration detailing the reasons why the applicant did not lodge a tax return for the years ended 30 June 1995 to 30 June 2000 (inclusive);
(e) Such other information or documents reasonably requested by the respondents.
Clause 4 of the Registrar’s order provided that any breach of the terms of the order was a breach of the condition of the consent order and any future proceedings of the applicant against the respondent in regard to the subject accident would be dismissed or struck out.
The second respondent, Allianz Australia Insurance Limited complains that there has been no compliance whatsoever with the provisions of clause 2 of the Registrar’s…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Amos v. Veljkovic & Anor 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] QDC 159
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had breached the conditions set by the Registrar when granting the extension of time. The Registrar had imposed specific conditions on the extension, which the applicant needed to comply with. The court had to determine whether the applicant had adhered to these conditions and whether any breach justified the dismissal of the applicant’s action.
The court found that the applicant had indeed breached the conditions imposed by the Registrar. The Registrar had ordered that the applicant provide a particulars of claim within a certain period, which the applicant failed to do. Consequently, the court held that the breach of the conditions warranted the dismissal of the applicant’s action. The court upheld the Registrar’s order, dismissing the applicant’s action in accordance with the terms of the order dated 26 October 2007.
Orders
Orders of the court
Applicant’s action dismissed in terms of Registrar’s order of 26 October 2007.
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.