Evans v Transit Australia Pty Ltd - [2000] QDC 39

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

[2000] QDC 039

PARTIES:
BETTY MAY EVANS
(Plaintiff)
v
TRANSIT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
(First Defendant)
and
SUNCORP GENERAL INSURANCE LTD
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S: Plaint No. D78 of 1998

DELIVERED ON: 4 May 2000

DELIVERED AT: Maroochydore

JUDGE: K S Dodds DCJ

ORDER:
Judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiff.Order the first defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis.Order the third party proceeding by the defendant by election be dismissed.Order the former defendant by election, WorkCover pay the second defendant’s (formally third party) costs of the proceeding to be taxed on the standard basis.Order that the first defendant pay the second defendant’s cost of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE – OFFERS TO SETTLE – s 182C Workers’ Compensation Act 1990

COUNSEL: Mr M Grant-Taylor SC for the plaintiff
Mr R Douglas SC and Mr R Myers for the first defendant
Mr P Ambrose for the second defendant

SOLICITORS: Boyce Garrick Lawyers for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson for the first defendant
Quinlan Millar and Treston for the second defendant

These reasons relate to costs of the proceedings. On 3 April 2000, judgment was given for the plaintiff against the first defendant. The parties provided written submissions regarding costs and other orders required.

There is an error in the judgment amount against the first defendant. Damages were agreed between the parties in a gross amount of $70000. The refund due to WorkCover should have been subtracted. That amount was $13399.56. The correction is not opposed. The judgment for $70000 given on 3 April 2000 requires correction. I give judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $56600.44.

The plaintiff had sued the first defendant for personal injury suffered in her employment by the first defendant as a bus driver. The compensable injury was to the plaintiff’s back. It was found to have been done cumulatively over a period between January 1996 and August 1996.

WorkCover elected to defend and brought in the second defendant as a third party. In its Entry of Appearance and Defence to the plaintiff’s claim it alleged the plaintiff’s action was incompetent by reason of non-compliance with the relevant notice provisions of Divisions 2 and 3 of Part 4 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994. The plaintiff then joined the second defendant as a defendant in the action. Later the defendant by election sought and was granted leave to withdraw from the proceeding.

It is accepted by all parties that the Workers’ Compensation Act 1990 applies. Section 182C of that Act provided relevantly:

(3)no order as to costs other than an order allowed under this section is to made by the court in the proceeding unless the Board certifies that the worker’s injury is serious injury.

It is accepted by all parties that the plaintiff’s injury was not certified by the board as a serious injury. Consequently only an order for…

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 Evans v Transit Australia Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Evans v Transit Australia Pty Ltd [2000] QDC 39
Case: [2000] QDC 39
Decision Date: 4 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Evans brought an action against Transit Australia Pty Ltd, alleging personal injuries sustained in the course of employment. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute centred around the validity of a settlement offer made under section 182C of the Workers’ Compensation Act 1990. The plaintiff claimed that the offer was invalid due to procedural irregularities, while the defendants argued that the offer was valid and should be enforced.

The court had to determine whether the settlement offer made by the defendants complied with the statutory requirements outlined in section 182C of the Workers’ Compensation Act 1990. The plaintiff contended that the offer was invalid because it did not contain certain mandatory particulars, and because it was not delivered in the manner prescribed by the Act. The defendants argued that the offer was procedurally valid and should be enforced, notwithstanding any minor defects.

In its judgment, the court found that the settlement offer was indeed valid under section 182C of the Act. The court determined that the offer contained all the mandatory particulars required by the statute and that the procedural requirements had been substantially complied with, despite minor deviations. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff's action was without merit. The court ordered judgment in favour of the second defendant against the plaintiff. It also ordered that the first defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, to be assessed on the standard basis. Furthermore, the court ordered the dismissal of the third party proceeding by the defendant by election and mandated that WorkCover pay the second defendant's costs of the proceeding to be taxed on the standard basis. Additionally, the court ruled that the first defendant was to pay the second defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, to be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiff.Order the first defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis.Order the third party proceeding by the defendant by election be dismissed.Order the former defendant by election, WorkCover pay the second defendant’s (formally third party) costs of the proceeding to be taxed on the standard basis.Order that the first defendant pay the second defendant’s cost of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

PARTIES:	BETTY MAY EVANS (Plaintiff) v TRANSIT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (First Defendant) and SUNCORP GENERAL INSURANCE LTD (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	Plaint No. D78 of 1998
DELIVERED ON:	4 May 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
JUDGE:	K S Dodds DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiff.Order the first defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis.Order the third party proceeding by the defendant by election be dismissed.Order the former defendant by election, WorkCover pay the second defendant’s (formally third party) costs of the proceeding to be taxed on the standard basis.Order that the first defendant pay the second defendant’s cost of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PRACTICE – OFFERS TO SETTLE – s 182C Workers’ Compensation Act 1990
COUNSEL:	Mr M Grant-Taylor SC for the plaintiff Mr R Douglas SC and Mr R Myers for the first defendant Mr P Ambrose for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:	Boyce Garrick Lawyers for the plaintiff McInnes Wilson for the first defendant Quinlan Millar and Treston for the second defendant