Cameron v RACQ Insurance Limited

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cameron v RACQ Insurance Limited [2013] QSC 124

PARTIES:

GARY CAMERON by his Litigation Guardian FAYE RAWLINSON
(applicant)
v
RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED (ABN 50 009 704 152)
(respondent)

FILE NO:

3476 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

15 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 April 2013

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

Order as per draft

CATCHWORDS:

INSURANCE – MOTOR VEHICLES – COMPULSORY THIRD PARTY INSURANCE AND LIKE SCHEMES – GENERALLY – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident – where the applicant requests information pursuant to s 47 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) – where the respondent declined the request – whether an order should be made requiring the respondent to provide requested information

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 35, s 47

Faraji v Dambarage [2012] QDC 137, cited
Gitsham v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2002] QCA 310; [2003] 2 Qd R 251, cited
Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Brown [2004] QCA 325; [2005] 1 Qd R 204, cited
Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Hill [2004] QCA 202; [2004] 2 Qd R 681, cited

COUNSEL:

G C Cross for the applicant
K N Wilson SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Colin Patino & Co for the applicant
Cooper Grace Ward for the respondent

1. The applicant suffered a traumatic brain injury on 26 May 2008, as a result of a collision with a truck whilst cycling to work.  The accident occurred some time between 5.30 am and 6.02 am.  The applicant did not have lights on his bicycle.  The driver of the truck that struck the applicant apparently did not see him. 

1. The state of light at the time of the collision is a critical issue.  The precise time at which the collision occurred (and therefore the state of any daylight and/or moonlight at that time) is important.  The time at which the driver of the truck made two mobile telephone calls to his employer very shortly after the incident will enable the time of the incident to be established with more precision. 

1. The applicant has requested information from the insurer of the vehicle about the telephone calls, including production of the telephone records or a signed authority of the owner of the mobile phone that made each call so that telephone records can be supplied by the company which provided the service. The request for this information sought the cooperation of the respondent pursuant to s 47 of the

   
   Motor Accident Insurance Act

   1994 (Qld) (“the Act”). The respondent insurer declined the request, and the applicant seeks orders to enforce the respondent’s statutory duty to cooperate with the claimant under s 47 of the Act.

1. The respondent opposes an order requiring it to provide the requested information and submits that the request:

(a)     does not seek documents in the insurer’s possession;

(b)     does not seek information about the circumstances of the…