SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Coley v Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 181
PARTIES:
KEVIN WAYNE COLEY
(plaintiff/appellant/applicant)
v
NOMINAL DEFENDANT
(defendant/respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 9391 of 2002
DC No 2161 of 2001DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Application for Extension of Time s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
2 May 2003
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
17 February 2003
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, McMurdo P and Jerrard JA concurring as to the orders made, Mackenzie J dissentingORDERS:
1. Leave to appeal granted
2. Appeal allowed
3. Order of 20 September 2002 set aside and instead order that the defendant's application to strike out be dismissed with costs
4. The respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this application and appeal to be assessedCATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – where appellant suffered personal injury in motor accident – where learned primary judge held that the Motor Accident InsuranceAct 1994 (Qld) had no application to the facts of the case - where learned primary judge struck out parts of the Amended Statement of Claim - whether the injuries sustained by the appellant were caused wholly or partly by the unidentified motor vehicle - whether the learned primary judge erred in law and in fact
Dickinson v The Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1987) 163 CLR 500, distinguished
Evans v Transit Australia Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 30, considered
Mani v Nominal Defendant [2003] 1 Qd R 248, considered
March v Stramare Pty Ltd (1990-1991) 171 CLR 506, applied
State Government Insurance Commission v Stevens Bros Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 552, distinguished
Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514, considered
Westpac Banking Corporation v Klef Pty Ltd [1998] QCA 311; Appeal No 8204 of 1998, 16 August 1998, appliedWiley v The ANI Corporation Limited [2000] QCA 314, Appeal No 4092 of 1999, 5 April 2000, applied
COUNSEL:
N E Ulrick for the appellant/applicant
S C Williams QC, with P D Lane, for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Bartels for the appellant/applicant
O'Shea Corser & Wadley for the respondent
McMURDO P: At about 8 pm on 30 May 1998, the applicant was driving his Ford Fairmont sedan west along Milne Street, Beenleigh when an unidentified white motor vehicle, also travelling west, commenced to overtake him. The unknown driver or a passenger of the second vehicle threw an object akin to a Molotov cocktail into the applicant's vehicle setting fire to the interior. The second vehicle sped off and was never identified. The applicant suffered burns, smoke inhalation and shock.
The applicant commenced proceedings in the District Court against the respondent claiming damages for personal injuries caused by the negligence and/or wrongful act of the driver of the second vehicle and/or his passenger under the Motor…
Continue reading Coley v Nominal Defendant
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Coley v Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 181
- Case
- [2003] QCA 181
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and focused on whether the injuries sustained by the appellant were caused wholly or partly by the unidentified motor vehicle. The court found that the primary judge had failed to properly apply the relevant legal principles in assessing the causation of the injuries, leading to an erroneous decision. The court concluded that the primary judge's determination was incorrect both in law and fact, and that the appellant's amended statement of claim should not have been struck out.
Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The order made on 20 September 2002 was set aside, and instead, the court dismissed the defendant's application to strike out with costs. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this application and appeal, to be assessed. This decision ensures that the appellant's claim will proceed to trial, allowing for a proper assessment of the causation of his injuries and the applicability of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld).
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave to appeal granted
2. Appeal allowed
3. Order of 20 September 2002 set aside and instead order that the defendant's application to strike out be dismissed with costs
4. The respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this application and appeal to be assessed
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.