Angus v Conelius - [2007] QCA 190

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Angus v Conelius & Anor [2007] QCA 190

PARTIES:

SHIRLEY BERYL ANGUS
(plaintiff/applicant/appellant)
v
MARIA JOHANNA CONELIUS
(first defendant/not party to appeal)
SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED
ACN 075 695 966
(second defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11131 of 2006
SC No 689 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time/General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

8 June 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 May 2007

JUDGES:

Williams JA, Jerrard JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Application for an extension of time granted
2. Appeal dismissed
3. Appellant pay the respondent’s costs, assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – RULES OF CONSTRUCTION – GENERALLY – where the appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident – where the respondent issued the appellant with a request for information pursuant to Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 45 – where the appellant rejected the request – where the respondent applied for an order requiring compliance with the request – whether the giving of the order was proper

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 45

Gitsham v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd[2002] QCA 310; [2003] 2 Qd R 251, considered
Newberry v Suncorp Metway InsuranceLtd[2006] QCA 48; Appeal No 7137 of 2005, 3 March 2006, applied
Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Hill [2004] QCA 202; [2004] 2 Qd R 681, considered

COUNSEL:

D O J North SC for the applicant
R J Douglas SC, with E J Williams, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bennett & Philp (Brisbane) acting as Town Agent for Roati & Firth Lawyers (Ingham)
Cleary & Lee for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Jerrard JA and I agree with all that he has said therein. I would, however, add a brief observation of my own.

Once proceedings are commenced in a court the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) ("UCPR") impose obligations on a plaintiff in a personal injury matter to inform the defendant of the particulars of the claim, and to keep the defendant informed of material changes which occur prior to trial. Examples are r 150 and r 155 relating to matters which must be included in a pleading, r 211 dealing with disclosure of documents, and r 547 requiring the plaintiff to lodge a statement of loss and damage.

As Jerrard JA has pointed out in his reasons, one of the objects of the Motor Accident Insurance Act1994 (Qld) ("the Act") is to encourage the speedy resolution of personal injury claims (s 3). To facilitate that, the legislation provides a mechanism, including the holding of a compulsory conference and the exchange of settlement offers, designed to facilitate the resolution of the claim before the commencement of proceedings. To enable…

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 Angus v Conelius

Details

AGLC: Angus v Conelius [2007] QCA 190
Case: [2007] QCA 190
Decision Date: 8 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Angus v Conelius, the appellant, Angus, was involved in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently rejected a request for information issued by the respondent, Conelius, under section 45 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). Conelius applied for an order requiring Angus to comply with the request, leading to a dispute over the propriety of the order. The Queensland Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the legality of the order and the broader implications of the application for an extension of time and the costs associated with the appeal.

The court had to address the fundamental issue of whether the order for compliance with the information request was appropriate. This involved examining the statutory framework provided by the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) and determining the scope and limits of the powers granted by section 45. Additionally, the court considered the procedural fairness of allowing an extension of time for the application and the appropriateness of ordering costs against the appellant.

The Court of Appeal found that the order for compliance was properly issued under the statutory authority provided by section 45. The court reasoned that the request for information was a legitimate exercise of the powers conferred by the Act, and the refusal to comply constituted a breach of the statutory obligations. The court also concluded that the extension of time for the application was justified under the circumstances, and the imposition of costs on the appellant was warranted given the nature of the appeal and the appellant's conduct. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

The court's final orders included granting the application for an extension of time, dismissing the appeal, and directing the appellant to pay the respondent's costs assessed on the standard basis. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory requests for information in the context of motor accident insurance and highlights the potential consequences for non-compliance.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for an extension of time granted

2. Appeal dismissed

3. Appellant pay the respondent’s costs, assessed on the standard 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:	Angus v Conelius & Anor [2007] QCA 190
PARTIES:	SHIRLEY BERYL ANGUS (plaintiff/applicant/appellant) v MARIA JOHANNA CONELIUS (first defendant/not party to appeal) SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 075 695 966 (second defendant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 11131 of 2006 SC No 689 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension of Time/General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	8 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 May 2007
JUDGES:	Williams JA, Jerrard JA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Application for an extension of time granted 2. Appeal dismissed 3. Appellant pay the respondent’s costs, assessed on the standard basis
CATCHWORDS:	STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – RULES OF CONSTRUCTION – GENERALLY – where the appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident – where the respondent issued the appellant with a request for information pursuant to Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 45 – where the appellant rejected the request – where the respondent applied for an order requiring compliance with the request – whether the giving of the order was proper Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 45 Gitsham v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd[2002] QCA 310; [2003] 2 Qd R 251, considered Newberry v Suncorp Metway InsuranceLtd[2006] QCA 48; Appeal No 7137 of 2005, 3 March 2006, applied Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Hill [2004] QCA 202; [2004] 2 Qd R 681, considered
COUNSEL:	D O J North SC for the applicant R J Douglas SC, with E J Williams, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bennett & Philp (Brisbane) acting as Town Agent for Roati & Firth Lawyers (Ingham) Cleary & Lee for the respondent