Hyytinen v Palmer - [2020] QSC 240

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hyytinen v Palmer & Anor [2020] QSC 240

PARTIES:

SARI KATRIINA HYYTINEN

(plaintiff/ applicant)

v

MARC ANTHONY PALMER
(first defendant/ respondent)

RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED
ACN 009 704 152

(second defendant/ respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 291 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
22 July 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

22 July 2020

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDER:

1.   The application for sanction be dismissed.

2. It is declared that the plaintiff is not “a person under a legal disability” as defined in section 59(1A) of the Public Trustee Act 1978 (Qld) so as to require a sanction of the settlement.

3.   It is declared that the plaintiff does not have an impaired capacity regarding a financial matter relevant to receiving, investing and managing the settlement sum.

4.   The second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application as agreed or, failing agreement, to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – DECLARATIONS – OTHER MATTERS – where the plaintiff/ applicant’s personal injury claim was settled at a compulsory conference – where there was limited material which cast doubt on the plaintiff/ applicant’s capacity – where a term of the settlement required, inter alia, the Supreme Court’s sanction – where the plaintiff/ applicant brought an application for sanction but argued that the application should be dismissed – where the plaintiff/ applicant invited the Court to give ex tempore reasons that reflected a factual finding the plaintiff/ applicant did in fact have capacity – where the applicant adopted this approach out of fear there was no proper contradictor for the purposes of a declaratory order – whether the Court should entertain an application brought by an applicant that seeks the application be dismissed – whether there is a contradictor for the purposes of granting declaratory relief

Public Trustee Act 1978 (Qld) s 59(1)
Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 10

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564; 59 A Crim R 255; 66 ALJR 271; 106 ALR 11, considered
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v MSY Technology Pty Ltd (2012) 201 FCR 378, applied
Barr v Amalgamated Property Maintenance Pty Ltd[2020] QSC 170, considered
IMF (Australia) Ltd v The Sons of Gwalia Limited (2004) 211 ALR 231; [2004] FCA 1390, cited
Re Queensland Police Credit Union Ltd (2013) 279 FLR 420; [2013] QSC 273, applied
Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v British Bank for Foreign Trade Ltd [1921] 2 AC 438, considered

Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity: Doctrines & Remedies (LexisNexis, 5th ed, 2015)

COUNSEL:
M Grant-Taylor QC for the plaintiff/ applicant

M Husband (sol) for the first and second defendants/ respondents

SOLICITORS:
Kahler Lawyers for the plaintiff/ applicant

Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the first and second defendants/ respondents

HIS HONOUR: The applicant’s personal injuries claim before this Court has…

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 Hyytinen v Palmer

Details

AGLC: Hyytinen v Palmer [2020] QSC 240
Case: [2020] QSC 240
Decision Date: 22 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hyytinen v Palmer involved the plaintiff, Hyytinen, who sought sanctions for a settlement of a personal injury claim, and the defendants, Palmer and another, who were being asked to provide the necessary declarations and approvals as per the terms of the settlement. The dispute centered on whether the Supreme Court should grant the declarations required for the settlement to proceed, particularly in light of concerns about Hyytinen's capacity to manage his affairs. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the court should entertain an application for sanction brought by an applicant who argued for the dismissal of the application and whether there was a contradictor for the purposes of granting declaratory relief. The court needed to determine if Hyytinen had the requisite capacity to enter into the settlement agreement without requiring the court's sanction and if the defendants could be considered contradictors in this context.

The court found that Hyytinen did not lack the capacity to manage his financial affairs, and therefore, he did not require the court's sanction for the settlement. The court also determined that the defendants could be considered contradictors for the purposes of granting declaratory relief. The court dismissed the application for sanction and declared that Hyytinen was not a person under a legal disability and did not have an impaired capacity regarding financial matters relevant to the settlement sum. Consequently, the second defendant was ordered to pay Hyytinen's costs of the application as agreed or, if not agreed, to be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for sanction be dismissed.

2. It is declared that the plaintiff is not “a person under a legal disability” as defined in section 59(1A) of the Public Trustee Act 1978 (Qld) so as to require a sanction of the settlement.

3. It is declared that the plaintiff does not have an impaired capacity regarding a financial matter relevant to receiving, investing and managing the settlement sum.

4. The second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application as agreed or, failing agreement, 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:	Hyytinen v Palmer & Anor [2020] QSC 240
PARTIES:	SARI KATRIINA HYYTINEN (plaintiff/ applicant) v MARC ANTHONY PALMER (first defendant/ respondent) RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 009 704 152 (second defendant/ respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 291 of 2020
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	22 July 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	22 July 2020
JUDGE:	Henry J
ORDER:	1. The application for sanction be dismissed. 2. It is declared that the plaintiff is not “a person under a legal disability” as defined in section 59(1A) of the *Public Trustee Act 1978* (Qld) so as to require a sanction of the settlement. 3. It is declared that the plaintiff does not have an impaired capacity regarding a financial matter relevant to receiving, investing and managing the settlement sum. 4. The second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application as agreed or, failing agreement, to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – DECLARATIONS – OTHER MATTERS – where the plaintiff/ applicant’s personal injury claim was settled at a compulsory conference – where there was limited material which cast doubt on the plaintiff/ applicant’s capacity – where a term of the settlement required, inter alia, the Supreme Court’s sanction – where the plaintiff/ applicant brought an application for sanction but argued that the application should be dismissed – where the plaintiff/ applicant invited the Court to give ex tempore reasons that reflected a factual finding the plaintiff/ applicant did in fact have capacity – where the applicant adopted this approach out of fear there was no proper contradictor for the purposes of a declaratory order – whether the Court should entertain an application brought by an applicant that seeks the application be dismissed – whether there is a contradictor for the purposes of granting declaratory relief Public Trustee Act 1978 (Qld) s 59(1) Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 10 Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564; 59 A Crim R 255; 66 ALJR 271; 106 ALR 11, considered Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v MSY Technology Pty Ltd (2012) 201 FCR 378, applied Barr v Amalgamated Property Maintenance Pty Ltd[2020] QSC 170, considered IMF (Australia) Ltd v The Sons of Gwalia Limited (2004) 211 ALR 231; [2004] FCA 1390, cited Re Queensland Police Credit Union Ltd (2013) 279 FLR 420; [2013] QSC 273, applied Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v British Bank for Foreign Trade Ltd [1921] 2 AC 438, considered Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity: Doctrines & Remedies (LexisNexis, 5th ed, 2015)
COUNSEL:	M Grant-Taylor QC for the plaintiff/ applicant M Husband (sol) for the first and second defendants/ respondents
SOLICITORS:	Kahler Lawyers for the plaintiff/ applicant Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the first and second defendants/ respondents