Legal Research
Cases
Deane-Johns & Anor v Ferris

Deane-Johns & Anor v Ferris

Case [2002] QCA 249

Appeal

Costs

Consent

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2002] QCA 249

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
JERRARD JA
WHITE J

No 9506 of 2001

FABIAN DEANE-JOHNS	Respondent
and
MAXINE DEANE-JOHNS	Not a Party to the Appeal

(Second Plaintiff)

and

JOEL FERRIS  Not a Party to the
  Appeal
  (First Defendant)

and

SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED Appellant
(Second Defendant)

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/07/2002

ORDER

DAVIES JA: Yes, Mr Keane

MR KEANE: Your Honours, terms of settlement have been signed. The only orders we need to ask the Court to make are by consent order the appeal be dismissed. By consent order the appellants pay the respondents costs of and incidental to the appeal, including the application for leave to appeal to be assessed.

DAVIES JA: Well, those will be the orders of the Court by consent.

-----

Details

AGLC: Deane-Johns v Ferris [2002] QCA 249
Case: [2002] QCA 249
Decision Date: 19/07/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Deane-Johns & Anor v Ferris, the Court of Appeal was called upon to consider an appeal made by Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited against the decision of the primary judge. The appeal arose out of a dispute involving Fabian Deane-Johns and Joel Ferris, with Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited also being a party to the litigation. The primary dispute involved an insurance policy and the validity of a claim made under that policy.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in law or made a mistake of fact in dismissing the appeal, and whether the appeal should have been allowed based on the merits. Specifically, the appeal challenged the primary judge's decision to uphold a finding that the insurance policy was valid and enforceable, and that the claim made by the insured party was legitimate.

The Court of Appeal, consisting of Davies JA, Jerrard JA, and White J, considered the arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the primary judge had not erred in his decision and that the findings made were supported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the orders from the primary judge were upheld. The Court of Appeal also made a consent order that the appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal, including the costs of the application for leave to appeal, to be assessed. This decision brought the appeal to a conclusion, affirming the primary judge's findings and dismissing the appeal on its merits.

Orders