Grigg v Rolfe Investments Pty Ltd - [1999] QDC 278

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

[Grigg v Rolfe Investments Pty Ltd & Ors]

REGISTRY: BRISBANE
APPEAL: 3405 OF 1999

Appellant:
CYNTHIA FAY GRIGG

AND
First Respondent:
ROLFE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
AND
Second Respondent:
FAI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

AND
  REGISTRY:     BRISBANE
  APPEAL:     3406 OF 1999
Appellant:
  JASON ASHLEY CROWE
AND
Respondent:
  FAI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
JUDGMENT - McGILL D.C.J.

Judgment Delivered: 12 October 1999

Catchwords: MOTOR VEHICLES - compulsory insurance - legislation - notice before action - leave to commence proceeding early not appropriate - Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s.39(5)(c).

Young v. Keong [1999] 2 Qd.R. 335 - applied
Re: Tonks (No. 4695/98, White J, 24.6.98, unreported) - followed
Carroll v. Ives (Plaint 1976/98, Wylie DCJ, 15.9.95, unreported) - distinguished

Counsel for the Appellants: R.J. Anderson

Counsel for the Defendant: K.F. Holyoak

Solicitors for the Appellants: Kenyons Lawyers

Solicitors for the Defendant: McInnes Wilson

Hearing Dates: 4 October 1999
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

REGISTRY: BRISBANE
APPEAL: 3405 OF 1999

Appellant:
CYNTHIA FAY GRIGG

AND

First Respondent:
ROLFE INVESTMENTS PTY LTD

AND

Second Respondent:

FAI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

AND
REGISTRY:     BRISBANE
  APPEAL:     3406 OF 1999
Appellant:
  JASON ASHLEY CROWE

AND

Respondent:
FAI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McGILL, D.C.J.
Delivered the 12^th day of October 1999

These two appeals were heard together and raise the same point. On consecutive days in August this year a Magistrate refused applications by the respective appellants under s.39(5)(c) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (“the Act”) for leave to bring a proceeding in a court for damages based on a motor vehicle accident claim. The appeals raise some general questions as to the issues which are relevant to the determination of an application for leave under that provision, and no doubt for that reason leave to appeal in each matter was given by His Honour Judge O’Brien on 30 September 1999. Before dealing with the relevant facts, I will say something about the scheme of the Act.

Scheme of the Act
The objects of the Act which commenced on 1 September 1994 include: “To encourage the speedy resolution of personal injury claims resulting from motor vehicle accidents”: s.3(c). Part 4 of the Act deals with claims, and Division 3 deals with claims procedures. Division 4 deals with co-operation between claimant and insurer, Division 5 with rehabilitation, and Division 6 with proceedings in court. Most of the provisions relevant to this matter appear in Division 3.
By s.37, a claimant who wishes to bring an action in a court for damages for personal injury arising out of a motor vehicle accident must first give written notice of the claim to the insurer setting out details of the claim, and including an offer of settlement (or sworn reasons why an offer of settlement cannot yet be made). The notice must be given within nine months after the accident or the first appearance of symptoms of the injury; if it is not given within this time, the obligation to give…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Grigg v Rolfe Investments Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] QDC 278
Decision Date: 12 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals heard by the District Court of Queensland concerned applications by the respective appellants for leave to bring a proceeding in a court for damages based on a motor vehicle accident claim, under s.39(5)(c) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994. The key legal issues were the relevant factors a court should consider when deciding whether to grant leave to commence proceedings early despite noncompliance with the Act, and the appropriate approach to such applications. The court held that the primary focus should be on the practical consequences of the delay, rather than the mere fact of noncompliance with statutory requirements or unsuccessful negotiations. The court emphasised the importance of encouraging parties to negotiate and resolve disputes before resorting to litigation, in line with the objectives of the Act. The appeals were dismissed, with costs, as the court found that the appellants had not shown sufficient justification for granting leave to commence proceedings early.

Orders