Donnan, Bakker and FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Elliott

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1994] QCA 583
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 103 of 1994.

Brisbane

[Donnan v. Elliott]

BETWEEN:

DENNIS WILLIAM ELLIOTT

(Plaintiff) Respondent

AND:

STEPHEN ANTHONY DONNAN

(First Defendant) First Appellant

AND:

HENDRIK PETRUS ADRIANUS BAKKER

(Second Defendant) Second Appellant

AND:

FAI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

(Defendant by Election) Third Appellant

____________________________________________________________

_____

Macrossan C.J.
Pincus J.A.
Davies J.A.

____________________________________________________________

_____

Judgment delivered 24/11/1994

Further Order delivered 09/12/1994

Order of the Court
____________________________________________________________

_____

FURTHER ORDER THAT RESPONDENT PAY APPELLANTS' COSTS OF THE
APPEAL.
____________________________________________________________

_____

Counsel:	Mr L Boccabella for the appellant. Mr T Matthews for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Baker Johnson for the appellant. Foley and Eardley for the respondent.

Hearing Date: 09/11/1994
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 103 of 1994.

Brisbane

Macrossan C.J.
Pincus J.A.

Davies J.A.

[Donnan v. Elliott]

BETWEEN:

DENNIS WILLIAM ELLIOTT

(Plaintiff) Respondent

AND:

STEPHEN ANTHONY DONNAN

(First Defendant) First Appellant

AND:

HENDRIK PETRUS ADRIANUS BAKKER

(Second Defendant) Second Appellant

AND:

FAI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

(Defendant by Election) Third Appellant

ORDER OF THE COURT

Order delivered 24/11/1994

The Court orders that the respondent pay the

appellants' costs of the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this appeal, the plaintiff, Dennis William Elliott, sought damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The first defendant, Stephen Anthony Donnan, and the second defendant, Hendrik Petrus Adrianus Bakker, were initially named in the action. FAI General Insurance Co. Ltd., having been elected as a defendant, became the third appellant in the case. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland's Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Motor Accidents Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). Specifically, the court needed to determine the appropriate forum for the plaintiff's claim and whether the defendants had a valid defence under the Act. The court had to examine the conditions under which the insurance company could be held liable and whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by the statutory provisions.

The Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff's action was improperly commenced in the Supreme Court. Under the Motor Accidents Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), certain motor accident claims must be made through the Motor Accident Insurance Commission and not directly against the insurance company. The court held that the plaintiff's claim should have been pursued through the Commission, and as such, the defendants had a valid defence. The appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. The court further ordered that the plaintiff pay the costs of the appeal to the appellants.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established