Amos v. Veljkovic & Anor

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2009] QDC 159
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amos brought an action against Veljkovic and another party, seeking an extension of time to commence proceedings for damages arising from personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The dispute centred on the application of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) and whether the applicant was entitled to an extension of the limitation period for commencing proceedings against the defendant. The case was heard in the District Court of Queensland.

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.