Brannock v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd - [2010] QCA 218

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Brannock v Jetstar Airways P/L [2010] QCA 218

PARTIES:

WILLIAM JOHN BRANNOCK
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
ABN 33 069 720 243
(defendant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 13353 of 2009
DC No 2492 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time/General Civil Appeal under s 118 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 August 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 May 2010

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fraser and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Fraser and White JJA concurring as to the orders made, McMurdo P dissenting

ORDERS:

1.   The application for an extension of time is granted.

2.   The application for leave to appeal is granted.

3.   The appeal is allowed.

4.   Judgment be entered for the appellant against the respondent.

5.   Unless there are submissions to the contrary, the respondent should pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal and the application for summary judgment.

CATCHWORDS:

AVIATION – CARRIAGE BY AIR – CARRIER’S LIABILITY – DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY OF PASSENGER – ON DOMESTIC FLIGHT– where passenger directed by flight staff to descend stairs to tarmac to board aircraft – where passenger could not find exit door – where passenger fell down stairs and was injured – whether there was an “accident” within the meaning of s 28 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) – whether there was an unexpected or unusual event or happening external to the passenger

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – PARTICULAR WORDS AND PHRASES – GENERALLY – construction of s 28 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth)

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether summary judgment should be given for the defendant/appellant

Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth), s 9B, s 11, s 21, s 21A, s 28, Sch 1A, Sch 1
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air 1999
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to International Carriage by Air 1929, Art 17
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 171, r 293

Air France v Saks (1985) 105 S Ct 1338; (1985) 470 US 392, considered
Air Link Pty Ltd v Paterson (2005) 223 CLR 283; [2005] HCA 39, considered
Barclay v British Airways Plc [2010] QB 187; [2008] EWCA Civ 1419, followed
Brannock v Jetstar Airways Pty Limited, unreported, Clare SC DCJ, District Court of Queensland, No 2492 of 2008, 9 April 2009, related
Chaudhari v British Airways Plc [1997] EWCA Civ 1413, followed
Fenton v J Thorley & Co Ltd [1903] AC 443, cited
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69, applied
Malaysian Airline Systems Berhad…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brannock v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd 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: [2010] QCA 218
Decision Date: 20 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Brannock v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd, the respondent, Mr Brannock, alleged that he was injured while attempting to board a domestic flight operated by Jetstar Airways. Mr Brannock was directed by flight staff to descend stairs to the tarmac to board the aircraft. However, he was unable to locate the exit door and fell down the stairs, sustaining injuries. Mr Brannock sought damages against Jetstar Airways, the appellant, claiming that the carrier was liable for his injuries under s 28 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth). The appellant applied for summary judgment, which was refused. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues before the court were whether there was an "accident" within the meaning of s 28 of the Act and whether the event was an unexpected or unusual event or happening external to Mr Brannock. The court considered the construction of s 28 and whether the event was an accident or an inherent risk of air travel. The court also considered whether the appellant was negligent in directing Mr Brannock to descend the stairs and whether the appellant had taken reasonable care to ensure Mr Brannock's safety.

The court held that the event was not an accident within the meaning of s 28 of the Act. The court found that the event was an inherent risk of air travel and not an unexpected or unusual event or happening external to Mr Brannock. The court held that the appellant had taken reasonable care to ensure Mr Brannock's safety and that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant. The court also held that the respondent's claim was statute-barred as it was not brought within the requisite time period.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the primary judge. The court ordered that judgment be entered for the appellant against the respondent and that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal and the application for summary judgment, unless there were submissions to the contrary. The court granted the appellant's application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an extension of time is granted.

2. The application for leave to appeal is granted.

3. The appeal is allowed.

4. Judgment be entered for the appellant against the respondent.

5. Unless there are submissions to the contrary, the respondent should pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal and the application for summary judgment.

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:	Brannock v Jetstar Airways P/L [2010] QCA 218
PARTIES:	WILLIAM JOHN BRANNOCK (plaintiff/respondent) v JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED ABN 33 069 720 243 (defendant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 13353 of 2009 DC No 2492 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension of Time/General Civil Appeal under s 118 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 August 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 May 2010
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Fraser and White JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Fraser and White JJA concurring as to the orders made, McMurdo P dissenting
ORDERS:	1. The application for an extension of time is granted. 2. The application for leave to appeal is granted. 3. The appeal is allowed. 4. Judgment be entered for the appellant against the respondent. 5. Unless there are submissions to the contrary, the respondent should pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal and the application for summary judgment.
CATCHWORDS:	AVIATION – CARRIAGE BY AIR – CARRIER’S LIABILITY – DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY OF PASSENGER – ON DOMESTIC FLIGHT– where passenger directed by flight staff to descend stairs to tarmac to board aircraft – where passenger could not find exit door – where passenger fell down stairs and was injured – whether there was an “accident” within the meaning of s 28 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) – whether there was an unexpected or unusual event or happening external to the passenger STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – PARTICULAR WORDS AND PHRASES – GENERALLY – construction of s 28 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether summary judgment should be given for the defendant/appellant Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth), s 9B, s 11, s 21, s 21A, s 28, Sch 1A, Sch 1 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air 1999 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to International Carriage by Air 1929, Art 17 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 171, r 293 Air France v Saks (1985) 105 S Ct 1338; (1985) 470 US 392, considered Air Link Pty Ltd v Paterson (2005) 223 CLR 283; [2005] HCA 39, considered Barclay v British Airways Plc [2010] QB 187; [2008] EWCA Civ 1419, followed Brannock v Jetstar Airways Pty Limited, unreported, Clare SC DCJ, District Court of Queensland, No 2492 of 2008, 9 April 2009, related Chaudhari v British Airways Plc [1997] EWCA Civ 1413, followed Fenton v J Thorley & Co Ltd [1903] AC 443, cited General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69, applied Malaysian Airline Systems Berhad…