Coffey v State of Queensland

[2009] QCA 256

COURT OF APPEAL

FRASER JA
CHESTERMAN JA
WHITE J

Appeal No 3941 of 2009
SC No 493 of 2007

JOHN LAWRENCE COFFEY

Plaintiff
(Appellant)

and

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

and

POLICE OFFICER RON MENTJES

and

POLICE OFFICER DAVID McKENZIE

First Defendant
(First Respondent)

Second Defendant
(Second Respondent)

Third Defendant
(Third Respondent)

BRISBANE

DATE 03/09/2009

JUDGMENT

FRASER JA: The first order would be that the appeal is allowed.

The second order would be that the orders made on the 20th of March 2009 in the trial division are set aside.

The third order would be grant the appellant leave to amend the amended claim filed on the 26th of March 2009 in a form which reinstates the claim which was filed on the 31st of October 2007.
The next order would be grant the appellant leave to amend the amended statement of claim within 14 days of today, then grant the defendant leave to file and deliver their defence to that amended statement of claim within 14 days of delivery of that amended statement of claim. Then grant the appellant leave to deliver a reply within 14 days of the delivery of that defence.

And then order that the appellant is at liberty, if so advised, to include in that amended claim and further amended statement of claim a claim for personal injuries.

FRASER JA: Well those are the orders of the Court so far.

FRASER JA: The only question remaining in this appeal is whether or not the appellant should be ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

The result of the appeal has been entirely favourable to the appellant in that the Court has made the orders which would flow from success in the appeal, but that has really come about because in the course of the hearing it appeared that the Crown would no longer oppose the appellant from bringing a personal injuries claim.

The appellant had at first instance insisted that he had abandoned the personal injuries claim but had failed to give effect to that insistence by signing an appropriate document for the purpose.

The result, I think, is a mixed one. In my opinion a fair order for costs would be that they be the defendants/respondents costs in the proceedings in the trial division. The intent of the order would be that if the respondents succeeded at the trial, but only in that event, they would get the costs. I would make that order.

CHESTERMAN JA: I agree.
WHITE J: I agree.

FRASER JA: So that order and the other orders I read out before are the orders of the Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Coffey v State of Queensland, the Court of Appeal heard an appeal brought by the plaintiff, John Lawrence Coffey, against the State of Queensland and two police officers, Ron Mentjes and David McKenzie. The plaintiff sought to amend his claim to include a claim for personal injuries that he had previously abandoned. The Court of Appeal was tasked with deciding whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend his claim and, if so, what orders should be made concerning costs.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the plaintiff should be allowed to reinstate his personal injury claim, which he had initially abandoned, and how this should impact the costs orders in the case. The Court also needed to consider the procedural implications of allowing such an amendment, given the timing and circumstances of the plaintiff's request.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the orders made by the trial division. They granted the plaintiff leave to amend his claim to include a personal injury claim, subject to certain conditions regarding the timeline for filing and responding to the amended claim. The Court held that the costs in the trial division should be borne by the respondents but that, if the respondents were successful at trial, they would be entitled to their costs from the plaintiff. This decision was based on the mixed outcome of the appeal, where the plaintiff's appeal was successful but the respondents would only incur costs if they prevailed at trial.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal included allowing the plaintiff to amend his claim, setting aside the trial division's orders, and directing the parties on the procedural steps to follow. Additionally, the Court ordered that the respondents' costs in the trial division proceedings should be paid by them, with the condition that they would be entitled to their costs from the plaintiff if they were successful at trial.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established