Daly v Dransfield and Grice - [2005] TASSC 43

[2005] TASSC 43

CITATION: Daly v Dransfield and Grice [2005] TASSC 43

PARTIES:  DALY, Fiona Bernadette
  v
  DRANSFIELD, Scott Wayne

GRICE, Shane Gerard

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  612/2003
DELIVERED ON:  27 May 2005
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  23 May 2005
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Supreme Court procedure – Tasmania – Jurisdiction and generally – Inherent jurisdiction – Stay of proceedings – When granted – To prevent an injustice.

Ferris v Lambton (1905) 22 WN (NSW) 56; Edmeades v Thames Board Mills, Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 127, followed.
Evers v Firth (1986) 10 NSWLR 22; Parker v Parker [1973] Tas SR (NC 6) 107; Stace v Commonwealth (1989) 51 SASR 391, referred to.
Aust Dig Procedure [265]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  P Barker
             Defendants:  C H Hobbs
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  PWB Lawyers
             Defendants:  C H Hobbs

Judgment Number: [2005] TASSC 43
Number of paragraphs: 18

Serial No 43/2005
File No 612/2003

FIONA BERNADETTE DALY v SCOTT WAYNE DRANSFIELD
AND SHANE GERARD GRICE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD CJ

27 May 2005

Introduction

On the afternoon of 29 March 2002, the plaintiff was a pillion passenger on a motor cycle driven by the first defendant. It was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by the second defendant. The collision occurred when the first defendant commenced to overtake the second defendant's vehicle and, at the same time, the second defendant turned right to go into a private driveway. Both the plaintiff and the first defendant came off the motor cycle, which was probably travelling at about 80 kilometres per hour at the time of its collision with the rear of the second defendant's vehicle.

The plaintiff was wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, but it must have somehow come off in the accident, because it was found afterwards on the ground close by her unconscious body.

The defendants have admitted liability. The only issue on the pleadings is contributory negligence. The pleaded particulars are:

"(a)The plaintiff failed to wear an appropriate safety helmet of secure fitting; and/or
(b)The plaintiff failed to adjust the fitting of safety helmet [sic] worn to ensure same did not become dislodged."

Mr Hobbs, the solicitor for the defendants, wants to conduct some tests to find out why the plaintiff's helmet came off. The plaintiff has refused to undergo these tests. The defendants now seek an order that the plaintiff's action be stayed until she submits to these tests.

The tests

The helmet that the plaintiff was wearing has been preserved. It complies with Australian standards and does not appear to have been damaged in the accident. The strap is in good condition. The plaintiff agreed to let Mr Hobbs send the helmet to Sydney for examination by Mr Gibson, an engineer specialising in "human impact engineering". Mr Gibson's opinion is that, assuming the plaintiff was wearing the helmet at the time of the impact (other evidence makes this a probability), it came…

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 Daly v Dransfield and Grice

Details

AGLC: Daly v Dransfield and Grice [2005] TASSC 43
Case: [2005] TASSC 43
Decision Date: 27 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Daly v Dransfield and Grice arose in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, where the plaintiff, Daly, sought to prevent an injustice caused by the defendants, Dransfield and Grice. The dispute centred around the defendants' actions which Daly claimed were unlawful and prejudicial to his interests. The court was asked to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to stay the proceedings on the grounds that allowing them to continue would lead to an unjust outcome.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court could be invoked to stay the proceedings to prevent an injustice. The court needed to consider the nature of the defendants' actions, the potential for harm to Daly, and the principles guiding the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Specifically, the court had to determine if the defendants' conduct warranted a stay to avoid an unjust result.

In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged the broad scope of its inherent jurisdiction to ensure justice is not thwarted. The court emphasised that the power to stay proceedings is not to be exercised lightly, but it can be invoked when necessary to prevent an injustice. The court found that the defendants' actions indeed posed a significant risk of causing injustice to Daly, and therefore, a stay was warranted to protect his rights. The court granted the stay, preventing the proceedings from continuing until the underlying issues could be resolved in a manner that ensures fairness and justice.

The final orders of the court were that the proceedings against Daly by Dransfield and Grice were stayed to prevent an injustice. This decision ensured that Daly's rights were protected pending a resolution of the underlying issues in a fair and just manner.

Orders