Bona v Jeffries

In the case of Bona v Jeffries, the plaintiff brought a claim for damages for personal injury and consequential loss arising from a motor vehicle accident. The defendants sought an order pursuant to ss 46A and 50 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) requiring the plaintiff to submit to an assessment by an occupational therapist. The central issue was whether such an assessment should be ordered in light of the delay in providing a suitable panel of occupational therapists for the examination. The plaintiff had previously been examined by an occupational therapist, Mr Stephen Hoey, at the request of his solicitors. The defendants had requested a further examination by a different occupational therapist but delayed in providing a suitable panel. The plaintiff refused to be further examined due to the delay, leading to the defendants' application for an order requiring the plaintiff to undergo the further examination.

The court had to decide whether it would be unreasonable to require the plaintiff to undergo the further examination, considering the delay and the plaintiff's refusal. The court examined the provisions of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) and the circumstances of the case. The court found that the delay in providing a suitable panel and the subsequent refusal by the plaintiff to be further examined justified the dismissal of the defendants' application. The court also considered the plaintiff's application for an order dispensing with the signatures of the defendants on a Request for Trial Date. The court granted the plaintiff's application and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of both applications.

In summary, the court dismissed the defendants' application for an order requiring the plaintiff to undergo a further occupational therapist examination due to the unreasonable delay in providing a suitable panel. The court also granted the plaintiff's application for an order dispensing with the signatures of the defendants on a Request for Trial Date. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of both applications.