Cameron v Qantas Airways Limited - [2011] NSWSC 1138

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cameron v Qantas Airways Limited [2011] NSWSC 1138
Hearing dates: 16 September 2011
Decision date: 23 September 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Plaintiff's amended notice of motion filed 27 April 2011 dismissed.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - plaintiff's notice of motion for relief already subsumed in settlement - motion dismissed
Cases Cited: Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2011] NSWCA 258
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Rita Cameron (Plaintiff)
Qantas Airways Limited (First Defendant)
Walker Legal (Second Defendant)
Craddock Murray Neumann (Third Defendant)
Representation: J Catsanos (First Defendant)
I Dicker (Second Defendant)
HWL Ebsworth (First Defendant)
Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk (Second Defendant)
Craddock Murray Neumann (Self-represented) (Third Defendant)

File Number(s): 2001/92202
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HIS HONOUR : Ms Rita Cameron filed an amended notice of motion on 27 April 2011. On 22 June 2011 I disposed of orders 1 and 2 that were sought by her. I directed that Ms Cameron be paid, out of the funds in court following the settlement of her claim against Qantas Airways Limited, all monies other than an amount approximately representing the sum of contested claims for costs against her. Ms Cameron has now received a sum of money paid to her in accordance with my order. The balance remains in court.

That leaves for consideration what is left of her notice of motion. Seven prayers for relief remain. By agreement between Ms Cameron and her respective opponents, however, orders 6, 7 and 8 have been disposed of and order 9 is in general terms and can be disregarded. The remaining orders 3, 4 and 5 are in the following terms:

"3. That the Honourable Court make orders that the first defendant pay all of the District and Supreme Court legal costs and disbursements as well as the costs of this amended notice of motion and the matters in the Honourable Courts, which amounts to over $300,000.

4. That both the first, second and third defendants pay for damages for the loss of life and liberty of the seriously injured plaintiff as the remainder of the forced settlement monies is an inadequate sum as the first defendant had filed a memorandum of consent as to jurisdiction in the District Court and refused to honour it.

5. That the Honourable Court make orders that the first defendant pay all of the severely injured plaintiff's monies withheld and not paid by the first defendant, which includes her unpaid wages, Court of Appeal ... costs, and past, present and future medical needs as she urgently needs 5 surgeries and that the spinal surgeries are not covered by Medicare and that up till now the first defendant still refuses to pay."

I enquired of the parties whether or not they wished to file any further evidence on these remaining issues and each declined. The transcript that follows describes what occurred before I reserved my decision upon the balance of the orders sought by Ms Cameron:

"DICKER: If Miss…

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 Cameron v Qantas Airways Limited 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: [2011] NSWSC 1138
Decision Date: 23 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Cameron v Qantas Airways Limited, the plaintiff sought relief against the defendant airline company for an undisclosed issue. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff's notice of motion for relief was already subsumed in the settlement agreement reached between the parties. Consequently, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the notice of motion for relief as it was no longer relevant.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff's notice of motion for relief was still valid and enforceable, given that it was already subsumed in the settlement agreement. The court had to consider the terms of the settlement agreement and determine whether the notice of motion for relief was effectively withdrawn or superseded by the settlement. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff had any grounds to argue that the notice of motion for relief should still be heard, despite the settlement.

The court found that the notice of motion for relief was indeed subsumed in the settlement agreement, and therefore, it was no longer valid or enforceable. The court held that the settlement agreement constituted a final and binding resolution of all disputes between the parties, including any motions for relief that were previously filed. The court further held that the plaintiff had no grounds to argue that the notice of motion for relief should still be heard, as it had already been superseded by the settlement. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for relief as being redundant and unnecessary.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's notice of motion for relief be dismissed, and that the settlement agreement between the parties remain in full force and effect. The court emphasised that the settlement agreement was a binding contract between the parties, and that both parties were bound by its terms. The court also noted that the dismissal of the notice of motion for relief did not affect the validity or enforceability of the settlement agreement in any way.

Orders