Hunter v Morris - [2000] WASCA 23

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: HUNTER -v- MORRIS [2000] WASCA 23

CORAM: IPP J
MURRAY J
STEYTLER J

HEARD: 1 DECEMBER 1999

DELIVERED : 1 DECEMBER 1999

PUBLISHED : 16 FEBRUARY 2000

FILE NO/S: FUL 58 of 1999

BETWEEN: PAUL GLENDON HUNTER
Appellant (Plaintiff)
AND
ELIZABETH ANN MORRIS
Respondent (Defendant)

Catchwords:

Insurance - Third party liability insurance - Motor vehicle accident - Failure to give notice in writing as required by Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA) s 29 - Whether SGIC naturally prejudiced within meaning in Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA) s 29A - No material prejudice - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA) s 29, s 29A

Result:

Appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant (Plaintiff) : Mr D I Connor
Respondent (Defendant) : Mr N C Monahan

Solicitors:

Appellant (Plaintiff) : Hoffmans
Respondent (Defendant) : State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Hall v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust [1984] WAR 111
Stevens v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust [1978] WAR 232

Case(s) also cited:

Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
McKinnon v Turner (1989) 6 SR (WA) 192
Smith v Mangione (1992) 8 SR (WA) 319
Summerville v Johnston (1979) 1 SR (WA) 207

IPP J: I have read the reasons to be published by Steytler J. I agree with them and his Honour's conclusions. I have nothing further to add.
MURRAY J: I have read the reasons for decision to be published by Steytler J, with which I agree. There is nothing I could usefully add.
STEYTLER J: This is an appeal from a decision of a Commissioner in the District Court.
On 27 November 1997 the appellant commenced an action against the respondent in respect of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 24 August 1993. The respondent admitted her negligence but did not admit that the appellant had suffered the injuries, loss and damage alleged by him. Moreover, the respondent said, neither the appellant nor anyone on his behalf gave notice in writing to the State Government Insurance Commission of his intention to make his claim as soon as practicable after the motor vehicle accident, as required by s 29(1) of the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA). That being so, the respondent contended, his claim is not maintainable. This question was tried as a preliminary issue on 24 February 1999. The learned Commissioner upheld the respondent's contentions and it was this which gave rise to the appeal.
At the conclusion of argument on the appeal the court unanimously allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the learned Commissioner, remitted the matter to the District Court for further hearing and made an order under s 29AA of the Act giving to the appellant leave to proceed with his action notwithstanding any failure by him to comply with s 29(1) of the Act. These are my…

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 Hunter v Morris

Details

AGLC: Hunter v Morris [2000] WASCA 23
Case: [2000] WASCA 23
Decision Date: 16 FEBRUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hunter v Morris is a case concerning third-party motor vehicle insurance, specifically addressing the requirements for giving notice under the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA) section 29. The defendant, Morris, was involved in a motor vehicle accident with the plaintiff, Hunter, and was insured under a policy with the State Government Insurance Commission (SGIC). The dispute arose because Morris did not provide written notice to the SGIC as required by the Act, and the plaintiff sought to argue that this failure prejudiced the SGIC's position.

The central legal issues the court needed to determine were whether the failure to give written notice as stipulated by section 29 of the Act constituted a prejudice to the insurer within the meaning of section 29A, and whether there was any material prejudice to the SGIC as a result of this failure. The court had to interpret the term "naturally prejudiced" and assess the circumstances of this case to determine if there was any prejudice to the insurer.

The court found that the failure to give written notice did not naturally prejudice the SGIC within the meaning of section 29A of the Act. The court considered the facts of this case, including the timeliness of the oral and subsequent written notice, and concluded that there was no material prejudice to the insurer. The court held that the prejudice must be assessed based on the unique facts of each case and that the absence of written notice alone was not sufficient to establish prejudice in this instance. The court emphasised that the absence of prejudice to the insurer meant that the insurer's rights under the policy were not prejudiced.

Given the findings, the court ruled in favour of the defendant, Morris, and against the plaintiff, Hunter. The court determined that the insurer was not naturally prejudiced by the failure to give written notice, and thus Morris was not liable for any additional damages.

Orders