Aorangi v Brambles Aust Ltd - [2001] QCA 200

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Aorangi v Brambles Aust Ltd & Ors [2001] QCA 200

PARTIES:
LEON AORANGI
(plaintiff)
v

BRAMBLES AUSTRALIA LIMITED ACN 000 164 938
(first defendant/respondent)
SUNCORP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED
ACN 075 695 966
(second defendant)
MERCANTILE MUTUAL INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED ACN 000 456 799
(third party/applicant)

FILE NO/S: Appeal No 10940 of 2000
DC No 525 of 1996

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 1 June 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 14 May 2001

JUDGES:
McPherson and Williams JJA and Chesterman J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER: Leave to appeal is refused with costs to be assessed

CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDING OF FACT – where trial judge refused application for summary judgment – where trial judge orders that the action go to trial – whether trial judge rightly refused summary judgment

INSURANCE – THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE – OTHER THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE – PUBLIC LIABILITY – where respondent admitted liability to claim made by plaintiff – where respondent sought to recover the amount liable to the plaintiff from the applicant pursuant to policy of Public Liability Insurance – interpretation of “carriageway or thoroughfare” – interpretation of “arising out of”

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)

Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance)Act 1942-1951 (NSW)

Bailey v Jamieson (1876) 1 CPD 329, followed

Brandon v Barnes [1966] 1 WLR 1505, referred

City of Keilor v O’Donohue (1971) 126 CLR 353, followed

Davies v Stephens [1836] 7 Car & P 570; 173 ER 251, referred

Glover v Politanski [1990] 2 Qd R 41, cited

Government Insurance Office of NSWv R J Green & Lloyd Pty Ltd (1965-1966) 114 CLR 437, followed

COUNSEL: Mr R Myers for the applicant
Mr P Hastie for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Carter Newell for the applicant
Minter Ellison for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: I have read what has been written by Williams JA and by Chesterman J. I agree with the reasons of their Honours. The application should be dismissed with costs.

WILLIAMS JA: The background to this application for leave to appeal is set out in the reasons for judgment of Chesterman J which I have had the advantage of reading.

It should be noted that there has yet been no relevant findings of fact made by a court. The argument in this Court proceeded on the basis of the allegations of fact contained in the various documents constituting the pleadings. Because the present respondent, Brambles Australia Limited, settled with the plaintiff, Leon Aorangi, out of court the factual basis on which liability was thereby admitted is not known. However, it has to be said that as between the applicant, Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Australia) Limited, and the respondent, there appeared to be no major dispute as to the circumstances in which 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 Aorangi v Brambles Aust Ltd

Details

AGLC: Aorangi v Brambles Aust Ltd [2001] QCA 200
Case: [2001] QCA 200
Decision Date: 1 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Aorangi against Brambles Australia Limited concerning a claim for indemnity in relation to public liability insurance. The dispute originated from an incident where Brambles Australia admitted liability to the plaintiff, Aorangi, and sought to recover the amount from the applicant under a policy of Public Liability Insurance. The trial judge had refused Brambles Australia's application for summary judgment and ordered the action to proceed to trial. Brambles Australia appealed against the trial judge's decision to refuse the summary judgment application. The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge was correct in refusing the summary judgment application.

The court examined the policy language to determine if the incident fell within the scope of coverage. Brambles Australia argued that the incident occurred on a "carriageway or thoroughfare," a term that needed interpretation. Additionally, the court had to interpret the phrase "arising out of" in relation to the incident. Brambles Australia contended that the trial judge should have granted the summary judgment application based on the clear policy terms and the respondent's admission of liability. Aorangi, on the other hand, maintained that the trial judge's decision was correct as there were factual disputes that needed to be resolved at trial. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in refusing the summary judgment application and ordering the matter to proceed to trial. The court held that there were genuine issues of fact that needed to be resolved, which justified the trial judge's decision.

As a result of the appeal, the court ruled that the trial judge's decision was sound and dismissed the appeal. The court found that there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact and the exercise of discretion in refusing the summary judgment application. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, and Brambles Australia was ordered to pay costs to be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal is refused with costs to be assessed

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:	Aorangi v Brambles Aust Ltd & Ors [2001] QCA 200
PARTIES:	LEON AORANGI (plaintiff) v BRAMBLES AUSTRALIA LIMITED ACN 000 164 938 (first defendant/respondent) SUNCORP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 075 695 966 (second defendant) MERCANTILE MUTUAL INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED ACN 000 456 799 (third party/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 10940 of 2000 DC No 525 of 1996
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	1 June 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 May 2001
JUDGES:	McPherson and Williams JJA and Chesterman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Leave to appeal is refused with costs to be assessed
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDING OF FACT – where trial judge refused application for summary judgment – where trial judge orders that the action go to trial – whether trial judge rightly refused summary judgment INSURANCE – THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE – OTHER THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE – PUBLIC LIABILITY – where respondent admitted liability to claim made by plaintiff – where respondent sought to recover the amount liable to the plaintiff from the applicant pursuant to policy of Public Liability Insurance – interpretation of “carriageway or thoroughfare” – interpretation of “arising out of” Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance)Act 1942-1951 (NSW) Bailey v Jamieson (1876) 1 CPD 329, followed Brandon v Barnes [1966] 1 WLR 1505, referred City of Keilor v O’Donohue (1971) 126 CLR 353, followed Davies v Stephens [1836] 7 Car & P 570; 173 ER 251, referred Glover v Politanski [1990] 2 Qd R 41, cited Government Insurance Office of NSWv R J Green & Lloyd Pty Ltd (1965-1966) 114 CLR 437, followed
COUNSEL:	Mr R Myers for the applicant Mr P Hastie for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Carter Newell for the applicant Minter Ellison for the respondent