Campbell v. Hansen - [2008] QDC 138

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Campbell v Hansen [2008] QDC 138

PARTIES:

WAYNE MICHAEL CAMPBELL

(Applicant)

v

ALLAN JOHN HANSEN

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D116 of 2008

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

23 May 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

12 May 2008

JUDGE:

Martin SC DCJ

ORDER:

1. The respondent submit to an examination by Dr. Chalk, psychiatrist, within 3 months of the date of this order;

2. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of this application on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

Gray v Hopcroft & Anor [2000] QCA 144.

Burgess v Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd [2006] QSC 331 (20 October 2006).

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act2002

COUNSEL:

Mr. Hockings for the Applicant.

Mr. Houston for the Respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Purcell Taylor Lawyers for the Applicant.

The Brad Robins Legal Centre for the Respondent.

The applicant seeks an order that the respondent submit to a personal examination by Dr Chalk, psychiatrist, pursuant to s 25 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act2002 (“the Act”).

The respondent had served a notice of claim pursuant to the Act on the applicant claiming damages for unlawful assault and wounding alleged to have occurred on 14 May 2005. The claim and statement of claim was filed on 6 May 2008. Part of the respondent’s claim is for damages for psychological problems alleged to have arisen from the incident.

In support of this part of the claim, the respondent provided to the applicant a report dated 6 September 2007 from Mr Fraser De Groot, psychotherapist of Townsville.

The respondent is currently seeking only quite a modest award of damages relative to the alleged psychological problems.

By letter dated 15 November 2007, Melody Deanna Cornish, a member of the applicant’s firm of solicitors, wrote to the respondent’s solicitors advising that the applicant was requesting that the respondent undergo an examination by a psychiatrist to be chosen by the respondent from a panel of three psychiatrists nominated in that letter. This letter also noted that the applicant would be responsible for the costs of the examination and costs of travel to attend upon the psychiatrist.[1]
[1] Exhibit “MDC3”.

By letter dated 20 November 2007, the respondent’s solicitors advised that the respondent preferred Dr Chalk of those nominated by the applicant. However, the respondent’s solicitors advised that the respondent would only agree to attend upon a specialist in Brisbane if the applicant agreed to pay the respondent’s expenses, including loss of income at the rate of $5,000 per day. In the alternative, the respondent’s solicitors advised that the respondent would be willing to attend upon a specialist locally, should the applicant nominate a local panel, and that the respondent would attend upon Dr Chalk if he travelled to Townsville for the examination.[2]
[2] “MDC4”.

By letter dated 26 November 2007, the applicant’s solicitors advised that instructions would be sought from the applicant in relation to bringing an application to court for directions. This letter also requested particulars of the tasks…

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. Hansen

Details

AGLC: Campbell v Hansen [2008] QDC 138
Case: [2008] QDC 138
Decision Date: 23 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Campbell v. Hansen involved a dispute regarding the assessment of psychological injury in the context of a personal injury claim. The parties to the case were the applicant, Campbell, and the respondent, Hansen. The matter was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court. Campbell sought an order for Hansen to undergo an examination by a psychiatrist, Dr. Chalk, to assess the extent of psychological injury alleged to have resulted from a motor vehicle accident involving Hansen.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the court to compel the respondent to submit to a psychiatric examination. The court needed to consider the relevant statutory framework, particularly the provisions of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, to determine the criteria for such an order. Additionally, the court examined the principles derived from relevant case law, such as Gray v Hopcroft and Burgess v Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd, to understand the standards and thresholds for compelling psychiatric examinations.

The Queensland Supreme Court, in delivering its judgment, found that the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated the necessity for the respondent to undergo a psychiatric examination. The court noted the statutory provisions that empower it to order such examinations where it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the respondent has sustained a psychological injury. The court also considered the case law, which emphasised the importance of the applicant providing credible evidence to support the need for such an assessment. The court determined that Campbell had met the required threshold, and thus ordered Hansen to submit to an examination by Dr. Chalk within three months. The court also ordered Hansen to pay Campbell’s costs of the application on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent submit to an examination by Dr. Chalk, psychiatrist, within 3 months of the date of this order;

2. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of this application on the standard basis.

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:	Campbell v Hansen [2008] QDC 138
PARTIES:	WAYNE MICHAEL CAMPBELL (Applicant) v ALLAN JOHN HANSEN (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D116 of 2008
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	23 May 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	12 May 2008
JUDGE:	Martin SC DCJ
ORDER:	1. The respondent submit to an examination by Dr. Chalk, psychiatrist, within 3 months of the date of this order; 2. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of this application on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	Gray v Hopcroft & Anor [2000] QCA 144. Burgess v Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd [2006] QSC 331 (20 October 2006). Personal Injuries Proceedings Act2002
COUNSEL:	Mr. Hockings for the Applicant. Mr. Houston for the Respondent.
SOLICITORS:	Purcell Taylor Lawyers for the Applicant. The Brad Robins Legal Centre for the Respondent.