Legal Research
Cases
Campbell v Biernacki

Campbell v Biernacki

Case [2009] TASSC 117 18 December 2009

Jurisdiction

Stay of Proceedings

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

[2009] TASSC 117

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Campbell v Biernacki [2009] TASSC 117

PARTIES:  CAMPBELL, Neil
  v
  BIERNACKI, Paul Stuart

FILE NO/S:  579/2007
DELIVERED ON:  18 December 2009
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  27 November 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow J

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Supreme Court procedure – Tasmania – Jurisdiction and generally – Stay of proceedings – Personal injuries action – Refusal of plaintiff to authorise defendant's solicitors to inspect Centrelink records.

Edmeades v Thames Board Mills Ltd [1969] 2 QB 67, Lane v Willis [1972] 1 WLR 326, followed.
Donnelly v Shallard (1936) 53 WN (NSW) 121; Emery v Hobson (1944) 61 WN (NSW) 136, not followed.

Aust Dig Procedure [265]

Procedure – Discovery and interrogatories – Discovery and inspection of documents – Discovery of documents – Orders for further and better discovery – School reports relevant to claim for psychological impairment – Documents relating to social security benefits relevant to claim for economic loss.

Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), rr388, 389.
Compagnie Financière du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co (1882) 11 QBD 55, applied.
Aust Dig Procedure [440]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff/Respondent:  C Law
             Defendant/Applicant:  R J Phillips
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff/Respondent:  Page Seager
             Defendant/Applicant:  Phillips Taglieri

Judgment Number: [2009] TASSC 117
Number of paragraphs: 40

Serial No 117/2009
File No 579/2007

NEIL CAMPBELL v PAUL STUART BIERNACKI

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW J

18 December 2009

There are two applications before me in relation to an action for damages for personal injuries. The defendant is seeking orders enabling his solicitors to see the plaintiff's secondary school reports, and papers relating to his Centrelink benefits.

The plaintiff's case is that he was travelling in a vehicle driven by the defendant in April 2007; that the defendant negligently lost control of the vehicle; and that he was seriously injured as a result. The defendant is disputing liability. The plaintiff suffered a serious injury to his left eye, and that is not disputed. According to particulars filed and served by the plaintiff's solicitors, he returned to work in September 2007 but, as a result of the accident, ceased work in November 2008 and has been unable to work since. He contends that he became unfit for continuing work as a result of "ongoing problems with chronic anxiety, depression, fatigue and concentration as well as other continuing psychological problems caused by the accident". Damages for future economic loss have been claimed on the basis that his earning capacity has been destroyed, and that he will never work again. Understandably, the defendant's solicitors wish to investigate the impact of the accident on the plaintiff's mental health, and the extent of his incapacity for work. It is in that context that the present applications have been made.

School reports

One order sought by the defendant is, "That the plaintiff discover to the defendant his secondary school reports".

The defendant's solicitors had the plaintiff assessed by a psychiatrist, Dr Sale. Dr Sale saw him on 5 March 2009, and wrote a report about…

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.

Continue reading Campbell v Biernacki

Details

AGLC: Campbell v Biernacki [2009] TASSC 117
Case: [2009] TASSC 117
Decision Date: 18 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Campbell v Biernacki was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The plaintiff, Campbell, brought a personal injury claim against the defendant, Biernacki. The dispute centred around the plaintiff's refusal to authorise the defendant's solicitors to inspect Centrelink records that were relevant to the claim. This refusal was the basis for the defendant's application to stay the proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's refusal to authorise the inspection of Centrelink records constituted an abuse of process that warranted a stay of the proceedings. The court had to consider whether such a refusal could be seen as an unreasonable impediment to the defendant's ability to adequately defend the claim. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate remedy if it found that an abuse of process had occurred.

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's refusal to authorise the inspection of Centrelink records did constitute an abuse of process. The court reasoned that access to these records was necessary for the defendant to properly investigate and defend the claim, and the plaintiff's refusal to allow this access was unreasonable. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to stay the proceedings until the plaintiff authorised the inspection of the records. This decision underscored the importance of cooperation between parties in personal injury litigation and the court's role in ensuring that proceedings are not unduly obstructed.

Orders