Haug v Jupiters Ltd - [2007] QCA 199

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Haug v Jupiters Limited Trading as Conrad Treasury Brisbane [2007] QCA 199

PARTIES:

IAN HAUG
(applicant/respondent)
v
JUPITERS LIMITED TRADING AS CONRAD TREASURY BRISBANE
(respondent/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3006 of 2007
SC No 9408 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 June 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 June 2007

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Appeal allowed
2. Order No 1 of 22 March 2007 varied to exclude the references therein to paragraphs 1, 5, 6, and 7 of the solicitor’s letter of 17 January 2007
3. Order No 2 of that same day is varied by the deletion therein of the reference to paragraph 11 of the solicitor’s letter
4. The respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs to be assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – RULES OF CONSTRUCTION – GENERALLY – where the respondent was injured at the appellant’s premises – where orders were made under
s 27(1)(a)(i) and s 27(1)(b)(i) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) for disclosure of certain documents and information – whether there was inconsistency in the orders – whether the orders were consistent with the purpose of s 27

EVIDENCE – FACTS EXCLUDED FROM PROOF – ON GROUNDS OF PRIVILEGE – PROFESSIONAL CONFIDENCE – LEGAL PROFESSION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the judge’s orders did not expressly exclude from production documents over which legal professional privilege could be claimed – whether the absence of express exclusion meant that the privilege could not operate

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 27(1), s 30

Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Limited& Ors (1997) 188 CLR 501, applied
RACQ-GIO Insurance Limited v Ogilvie [2001] QSC 36; [2002] 1 Qd R 536, distinguished

COUNSEL:

R J Douglas SC, with D J Kelly, for the appellant
R A I Myers for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Barry Nilsson Lawyers for the appellant
Shine Roche McGowan for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Jerrard JA and I agree with his reasoning and with the orders proposed. There are however some matters which I feel should be emphasised.

The duty imposed upon a claimant by s 22 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 ("the Act") and the duty imposed on a respondent by s 27 thereof are consequent upon a notice of claim having been given pursuant to s 9 of the Act. Section 9(2)(a) provides that the notice must contain the information required under a section, and section 3(3) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Regulation 2002 (Qld) requires details of how the incident alleged to have caused the personal injury happened to be set out in the notice. Further, in the Schedule…

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 Haug v Jupiters Ltd

Details

AGLC: Haug v Jupiters Ltd [2007] QCA 199
Case: [2007] QCA 199
Decision Date: 15 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Haug v Jupiters Ltd, the dispute arose from an injury sustained by the respondent at the appellant's premises. The court was tasked with examining the consistency of orders made under sections 27(1)(a)(i) and 27(1)(b)(i) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld). The key legal issues involved whether there was an inconsistency in the orders and whether they were consistent with the purpose of section 27 of the Act. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the absence of an express exclusion of documents subject to legal professional privilege meant that the privilege could not operate.

The court found that the orders were inconsistent and not aligned with the purpose of section 27. Specifically, the orders did not expressly exclude documents over which legal professional privilege could be claimed. The court reasoned that the absence of an express exclusion in the orders did not preclude the operation of legal professional privilege. The court varied the orders to exclude certain references to specific paragraphs of a solicitor's letter, thereby addressing the inconsistency. The court's decision highlighted the importance of clear and specific orders to protect privileged information in personal injury proceedings.

As a result of the appeal, the orders made on 22 March 2007 were varied. Order No 1 was altered to exclude references to certain paragraphs of a solicitor’s letter, and Order No 2 was modified by deleting a reference to another paragraph of that letter. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs, to be assessed on the standard basis. The court's final orders ensured that the protection of legal professional privilege was adequately maintained within the context of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Order No 1 of 22 March 2007 varied to exclude the references therein to paragraphs 1, 5, 6, and 7 of the solicitor’s letter of 17 January 2007

3. Order No 2 of that same day is varied by the deletion therein of the reference to paragraph 11 of the solicitor’s letter

4. The respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs 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.

CITATION:	Haug v Jupiters Limited Trading as Conrad Treasury Brisbane [2007] QCA 199
PARTIES:	IAN HAUG (applicant/respondent) v JUPITERS LIMITED TRADING AS CONRAD TREASURY BRISBANE (respondent/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 3006 of 2007 SC No 9408 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	15 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 June 2007
JUDGES:	Williams and Jerrard JJA and White J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal allowed 2. Order No 1 of 22 March 2007 varied to exclude the references therein to paragraphs 1, 5, 6, and 7 of the solicitor’s letter of 17 January 2007 3. Order No 2 of that same day is varied by the deletion therein of the reference to paragraph 11 of the solicitor’s letter 4. The respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs to be assessed on the standard basis
CATCHWORDS:	STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – RULES OF CONSTRUCTION – GENERALLY – where the respondent was injured at the appellant’s premises – where orders were made under s 27(1)(a)(i) and s 27(1)(b)(i) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) for disclosure of certain documents and information – whether there was inconsistency in the orders – whether the orders were consistent with the purpose of s 27 EVIDENCE – FACTS EXCLUDED FROM PROOF – ON GROUNDS OF PRIVILEGE – PROFESSIONAL CONFIDENCE – LEGAL PROFESSION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the judge’s orders did not expressly exclude from production documents over which legal professional privilege could be claimed – whether the absence of express exclusion meant that the privilege could not operate Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 27(1), s 30 Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Limited& Ors (1997) 188 CLR 501, applied RACQ-GIO Insurance Limited v Ogilvie [2001] QSC 36; [2002] 1 Qd R 536, distinguished
COUNSEL:	R J Douglas SC, with D J Kelly, for the appellant R A I Myers for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Barry Nilsson Lawyers for the appellant Shine Roche McGowan for the respondent