Curry v Brisbane City Council

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Curry v Brisbane City Council [2010] QDC 148

PARTIES:

GEORGE RICHARD CURRY

(Applicant)

AND

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD585/10

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 March 2010

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Application dismissed

2.   No Order to Costs

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE – Personal Injuries – Personal Injuries Proceedings Act – pre-litigation procedure – obligations under s 27 to disclose documents and provide information – scope of obligation – whether failure to comply

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002: s 27(1)

Haug v Jupiters Limited Trading as Conrad Treasury Brisbane (2008) 1 Qd R 276 – followed.

Oliver v Mulp Pty Ltd (2009) QSC 340 – followed.

Wright v KB Nut HoldingsPty Ltd [2010] QDC 91 – followed.

Haug v Jupiters Limited Trading as Conrad Treasury Brisbane [2007] QCA 328 – considered.

Wolski v ALH Group Pty Ltd (2009) QDC 202 – referred to.

Hare v Mount Isa City Council (2009) QDC 39 – referred to.

Bowers & RACQ GIO Insurance Ltd v. Ogilvie [2001] QSC 36 – considered.

COUNSEL:

C. Newton for the applicant

 A.M. Musgrave for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Turner Freeman for applicant

Barry and Nilsson for respondent

1. In this matter the applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 27 June 2007. He was a pedestrian crossing the intersection of Wharf, Queen and Eagle Streets when struck by a taxi, travelling inbound on Queen Street. The taxi was intending to go straight ahead along the one inbound lane of Queen Street which proceeded into that section of Queen Street between Wharf Street and Creek Street.

1. In addition to giving notice under the Motor Accidents Insurance Act (“MAIA”) to the CTP insurer of the taxi, the claimant also gave notice under the Personal Injuries Proceeding Act (“PIPA”) to the respondent, which is said to be the local authority responsible for the configuration of the intersection.

1. In response to question 9 of the standard Part 1 Notice of Claim, the applicant said:

“I went to cross the road and was hit by a taxi.  The configuration of the traffic lights, road markings and signs was confusing and a foreseeable risk of injury to pedestrians.”

1. In answer to question 18 thereof, which is directed towards who caused the accident, he said:

“The council as a road authority by its:--

1.failure to design or configure the roadway intersection by lights, signs and warnings in a way that would reduce the risk of injury to pedestrians;

2.failing to adequately warn me of the danger at the intersection.”

1. The issue in dispute concerns compliance by the respondent with its obligations pursuant to both s 27(1)(a)(i) and s 27(1)(b)(i) of PIPA.

1. Those sub-sub sections provide as follows:

(1) A respondent must give a claimant—

(a) copies of the following in the respondent’s possession that are directly relevant to a matter in issue in the claim—

(i) reports and other documentary material about the…