Hancock v Nominal Defendant

[2000] QCA 185

[2000] QCA 185

COURT OF APPEAL

MCMURDO P
DAVIES JA
HOLMES

No 2634 of 2000

THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT          Appellant (Second Defendant)

and

PAUL HARRISON WALLACE                  Not party to appeal
  (First Defendant)

and

DAVID JOHN HANCOCK                   Respondent (Plaintiff)

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/05/2000

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: This is an application for leave to appeal from the decision of a District Court Judge given on 3 March 2000. The judgment was for an amount less than the Magistrates Court jurisdiction and therefore leave is required under section 118 of the District Court Act 1967.

The learned sentencing Judge found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages although the plaintiff did not see or hear the road accident or its aftermath in which his son had been killed.  The plaintiff suffered nervous shock as the result of being told by telephone what had occurred.

The finding of a duty of care to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case was recognised by the learned primary Judge as a widening of the class of persons to whom a duty was ordinarily owed.  The point has not been authoritatively determined at appellate level and it is an important question of law which could affect the rights of many litigants and is not just limited to the interests of the present parties.

The case is a proper one warranting the grant of leave. We would allow the application for leave to appeal from a decision of Skoien SJDC delivered on 3 March 2000 pursuant to section 1183 District Court Act 1967. The time is enlarged within which to file the notice of appeal until today and the costs of and incidental of today’s application are reserved.

-----