Bathman v Australian Income Protection Pty Ltd

[2009] QDC 371

[2009] QDC 371

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 3122 of 2009

ANTHONY BATHMAN	Plaintiff
and
AUSTRALIAN INCOME PROTECTION PTY LTD	Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 12/11/2009

ORDER

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 468, r 666

Order that claim for benefits under an income protection policy be given priority and certified for speedy trial - plaintiff seriously ill and in straitened financial circumstances - not open to parties to proceed by consent order under r 666, and impinge on court's ability to control its list

HIS HONOUR:  The Court has made an order in terms of the initialled draft which incorporates directions abridging times for the purposes of pleadings, disclosure and mediation.  It also, pursuant to rule 468 orders that the proceedings are given priority in the allocation to a trial date and certifies for speedy trial.  There's liberty to apply, against the possibility, not anticipated, that the parties may not continue to see eye to eye in the exercise of getting this matter tried quickly.

The claim is for benefits potentially available to the plaintiff under an income protection policy which Mr Charrington tells the Court provided for two years of benefits.  The dispute has been going on since the latter part of 2008 and the plaintiff has received no benefits, being dependent on Social Security.  His health situation is dire; hoped for remission to be procured by surgery in recent weeks hasn't been achieved.

The plaintiff's own evidence is going to be part of his case and from another point of view it would be desirable if any fruits garnered in the proceeding could be made available to improve the plaintiff's quality of life.

The matter is only before the Court because it's not open to the parties to utilise the procedures for consent orders in ways that deprive the Court of control of its lists.  Mr Charrington has referred me to Palmos v Georgeson [1961] Queensland Report 186.  The Court's offer to look into fixing trial dates today has not been taken up, that being seen as premature at this stage.

Order as per initialled draft.

-----