Goodsir v Al-Ko International Pty Ltd

In the proceeding Goodsir v Al-Ko International Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Goodsir, sought damages for injuries sustained when a pipe rolled off his trailer as it moved away from his motor vehicle. The trailer coupling had failed, causing the trailer to tilt. The plaintiff claimed that the manufacturer of the trailer coupling was negligent. The dispute centered on whether the plaintiff's CTP insurance covered his liability for the injury and whether the movement of the trailer constituted a "motor vehicle running out of control" under section 5(1)(a)(iii) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld).

The court had to determine if the insurer could strike out the plaintiff's claim on the basis that the movement of the trailer was not a motor vehicle running out of control, and whether the insurer's solicitors were permitted to withdraw an admission regarding the plaintiff's entitlement to indemnity under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). The insurer argued that the question of whether the movement of the trailer constituted a motor vehicle running out of control was a factual question to be determined on the basis of all the evidence, not on a summary basis. The insurer's solicitors had mistakenly believed the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity, but the particulars of the plaintiff's claim raised questions about whether the claim fell within section 5(1)(a) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). The plaintiff was not opposed to the withdrawal of the admission.

The court found that the insurer was permitted to withdraw the admissions, as the solicitors had mistakenly believed the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity, and the plaintiff was not opposed to the withdrawal. The court also found that the insurer was not entitled to strike out the plaintiff's claim, as the question of whether the movement of the trailer constituted a motor vehicle running out of control was a factual question to be determined on the basis of all the evidence, not on a summary basis. The court ordered that the insurer could withdraw the admissions and file an amended defence by a specified date, with the insurer to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application and any resulting amendment to the defence.