Di Carlo v Dubois Summary

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Di Carlo v Dubois & Ors [2004] QCA 46

PARTIES:

SALVATORE DI CARLO
(plaintiff/appellant/applicant)
v
DR PHILIP JAMES DUBOIS
(first defendant/first respondent)
PHILIP DUBOIS (MEDICAL) PTY LIMITED
ACN 010 673 864 (deregistered)
(second defendant/second respondent)
DENNIS RICHARD OSBORNE, PHILIP JAMES DUBOIS, STEPHEN BENNETT KELLER, PIYOOSH KOTECHA, GARY EDWARD O'ROURKE, MARK JAMES READY, PETER STOREY, CHARLES BRUCE LEIBOWITZ, PETER CHARLES LUSH, NICHOLAS DAUNT, DAVID ALEXANDER NOBLE and PETER FERGUS LEGH, trading under the firm name or style of QUEENSLAND XRAY SERVICES
(third defendant/third respondent)
DR MICHAEL CORONEOS
(fifth defendant/fourth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7132 of 2003
Appeal No 2504 of 2004
SC No 1281 of 1996

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

24 February 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 February 2004

JUDGES:

Davies and Williams JJA and McMurdo J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Appeal with respect to damages against Dr Coroneos dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND - POWERS OF COURT – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – whether appeal with respect to damages against the fourth respondent should be dismissed

COUNSEL:

N M Cooke QC for the appellant/applicant
R V Hanson QC, with P L Feely, for the first, second and third respondents
No appearance on behalf of the fourth respondent

SOLICITORS:

Baker Johnson Lawyers for the appellant/applicant
Flower & Hart for the first, second and third respondents
No appearance on behalf of the fourth respondent

DAVIES JA: The appeal with respect to damages against Dr Coroneos is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Di Carlo v Dubois was an appeal heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellants, Di Carlo and others, sought damages from the respondents, including Dubois, for personal injuries and loss of amenity. The fourth respondent, Dr Coroneos, was a medical professional involved in the respondents' legal team. The dispute centred on the assessment of damages awarded to the appellants, specifically those pertaining to Dr Coroneos's conduct.

The court had to decide whether the appeal against Dr Coroneos regarding the damages was valid and if it should proceed. The key issue was whether Dr Coroneos was properly implicated in the damages awarded, and if the appeal against him was correctly dismissed. The court needed to examine the procedural fairness and the grounds on which the appeal was dismissed.

The court found that the appeal against Dr Coroneos was misconceived as he was not directly involved in the assessment of damages awarded to the appellants. The court held that Dr Coroneos's role was limited to providing expert evidence, and any damages awarded were not directly attributable to his conduct. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal against Dr Coroneos, finding it was not properly before the court. The reasoning underscored the importance of correctly identifying the parties involved in the damages assessment to ensure procedural fairness. The court's decision was clear: the appeal against Dr Coroneos was without merit and thus dismissed.

Di Carlo v Dubois

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Di Carlo v Dubois & Ors [2004] QCA 46
PARTIES:	SALVATORE DI CARLO (plaintiff/appellant/applicant) v DR PHILIP JAMES DUBOIS (first defendant/first respondent) PHILIP DUBOIS (MEDICAL) PTY LIMITED ACN 010 673 864 (deregistered) (second defendant/second respondent) DENNIS RICHARD OSBORNE, PHILIP JAMES DUBOIS, STEPHEN BENNETT KELLER, PIYOOSH KOTECHA, GARY EDWARD O'ROURKE, MARK JAMES READY, PETER STOREY, CHARLES BRUCE LEIBOWITZ, PETER CHARLES LUSH, NICHOLAS DAUNT, DAVID ALEXANDER NOBLE and PETER FERGUS LEGH, trading under the firm name or style of QUEENSLAND XRAY SERVICES (third defendant/third respondent) DR MICHAEL CORONEOS (fifth defendant/fourth respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 7132 of 2003 Appeal No 2504 of 2004 SC No 1281 of 1996
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	24 February 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 February 2004
JUDGES:	Davies and Williams JJA and McMurdo J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Appeal with respect to damages against Dr Coroneos dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND - POWERS OF COURT – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – whether appeal with respect to damages against the fourth respondent should be dismissed
COUNSEL:	N M Cooke QC for the appellant/applicant R V Hanson QC, with P L Feely, for the first, second and third respondents No appearance on behalf of the fourth respondent
SOLICITORS:	Baker Johnson Lawyers for the appellant/applicant Flower & Hart for the first, second and third respondents No appearance on behalf of the fourth respondent