Campbell v Jones - [2002] QCA 375

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Campbell v Jones & Anor [2002] QCA 375

PARTIES:

KELLY ANNE CAMPBELL
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
DAVID SAMUEL JONES
(first defendant)
AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED MOTOR INSURERS LIMITED ACN 004 791 744
(second defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11496 of 2001

SC No 30 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

Judgment delivered 3 September 2002

Further Order delivered 24 September 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 April 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fryberg and Mullins JJ

Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

No further order

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – OTHER MATTERS - where solicitors’ firm representing respondent failed to comply with Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 relating to the provision to the defendant of a supplementary statement of loss or statements of witnesses – where failure to comply led to the reduction of the respondent’s damages by $7,500 – where solicitors’ firm offered and respondent accepted payment of $7,500 and to meet the costs and outlays of both sides of the appeal and to accept the standard costs recovered from the defendant for the trial as full satisfaction of what is owing for the trial – where firm undertook to court it would fully comply with the offer – where no further order called for

In re Foster (1950) 67 WN(NSW) 122, considered

COUNSEL:

J S Douglas QC, with M A Drew, for the appellant

D V C McMeekin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

S R Wallace & Wallace for the appellant
Macrossan & Amiet for the respondent

THE COURT: When the Court delivered judgment on the substantive issues in this appeal on 3 September 2002, it ordered that the solicitors for the respondent have leave to file submissions and/or affidavits as they might be advised, and adjourned the question of any order in relation to those solicitors for further consideration. Pursuant to that leave two affidavits have been filed, one sworn by Darren Ian Sekac, the member of the firm having the carriage of the matter, and the other by Gene Christopher Paterson, the managing partner of the firm. The respondent Ms Campbell has been referred to and engaged other solicitors to advise her. She has consented to the disclosure to the Court of confidential advice and other matters relating to her file.

The circumstances giving rise to that order are set out in the reasons for judgment of Fryberg and Mullins JJ. There is no need to repeat them. Both solicitors now acknowledge the firm’s failure to comply with the rules relating to the provision to the defendant of a supplementary statement of loss and damage and statements of witnesses (or a memo of their evidence). Mr Paterson has counselled Mr Sekac about these matters. He has written to the Queensland Law Society and provided it with copies of the judgment and the affidavits. He has made arrangements to put into place procedures for the review…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: Campbell v Jones [2002] QCA 375
Case: [2002] QCA 375
Decision Date: 3 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Campbell v Jones involved a dispute where the respondent's solicitors had failed to comply with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 by not providing a supplementary statement of loss or witness statements to the defendant. This non-compliance resulted in a reduction of the respondent's damages by $7,500. The respondent's solicitors subsequently offered and the respondent accepted payment of $7,500 as compensation for the non-compliance. Additionally, the respondent agreed to meet the costs and outlays of both sides of the appeal and accept the standard costs recovered from the defendant for the trial as full satisfaction of what was owed for the trial. The solicitors also undertook to the court that they would fully comply with this offer.

The primary legal issue the court had to determine was whether the respondent's solicitors should be held accountable for their failure to comply with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 and whether the compensation offered was sufficient and acceptable under the circumstances. The court also had to consider whether the respondent's acceptance of the compensation and costs arrangement was appropriate and whether any further orders were necessary.

The court acknowledged the solicitors' failure to comply with the Rules and recognised the impact of this on the respondent's damages. However, the court accepted the respondent's agreement to the compensation and costs arrangement as a fair resolution. The court noted that the respondent's solicitors had undertaken to fully comply with the offer and had assured the court of their commitment to adhere to the Rules in the future. The court concluded that no further orders were required and that the arrangement reached between the parties was an appropriate resolution of the matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

No further order

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 Jones & Anor [2002] QCA 375
PARTIES:	KELLY ANNE CAMPBELL (plaintiff/respondent) v DAVID SAMUEL JONES (first defendant) AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED MOTOR INSURERS LIMITED ACN 004 791 744 (second defendant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 11496 of 2001 SC No 30 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal – Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	Judgment delivered 3 September 2002 Further Order delivered 24 September 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 April 2002
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Fryberg and Mullins JJ Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	No further order
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – OTHER MATTERS - where solicitors’ firm representing respondent failed to comply with Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 relating to the provision to the defendant of a supplementary statement of loss or statements of witnesses – where failure to comply led to the reduction of the respondent’s damages by $7,500 – where solicitors’ firm offered and respondent accepted payment of $7,500 and to meet the costs and outlays of both sides of the appeal and to accept the standard costs recovered from the defendant for the trial as full satisfaction of what is owing for the trial – where firm undertook to court it would fully comply with the offer – where no further order called for In re Foster (1950) 67 WN(NSW) 122, considered
COUNSEL:	J S Douglas QC, with M A Drew, for the appellant D V C McMeekin SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	S R Wallace & Wallace for the appellant Macrossan & Amiet for the respondent