James v B and L Steel Fabrications Pty Ltd - [2004] QSC 25

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

James v B & L Steel Fabrications Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] QSC 025

PARTIES:

SCOTT WALTER JAMES
(plaintiff)
v
B & L STEEL FABRICATIONS PTY LTD
(ACN 010 334 335)
(first defendant)
and
THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT
(second defendant)

FILE NO:

SC No 8620 of 2003

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

27 February 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 February 2004

JUDGE:

Chesterman J

ORDER:

1.   Application dismissed

2.   The first defendant’s defence of 13 November 2003 be struck out

3.   The first defendant pay the second defendant’s and plaintiff’s costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

INSURANCE – THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE – MOTOR VEHICLES – COMPULSORY INSURANCE LEGISLATION – UNINSURED VEHICLES – QUEENSLAND – application of Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) – where plaintiff injured by an industrial crane – where uncertainty as to whether accident occurred on a road

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – OTHER MATTERS BEFORE TRIAL – whether question of whether accident occurred on a road can be determined at a preliminary trial

COUNSEL:

K T Magee for the first defendant/applicant
J B Rolls for the plaintiff/respondent
K N Wilson SC for the second defendant/respondent

SOLICITORS:

Damien Bourke & Associates for the first defendant/applicant
Carter Capner for the plaintiff/respondent
Hunt & Hunt for the second defendant/respondent

By a claim filed 1 October 2003 the plaintiff commenced proceedings against
B & L Steel Fabrications Pty Ltd and the Nominal Defendant ‘for damages for negligence … occasioning personal injury.’ Relevantly the statement of claim alleged:

‘2. At all material times:
(a) The first defendant was a company …

(b)The second defendant was a body corporate incorporated … under the provisions of the Motor Accidents Insurance Act … (“the Act”)

(c)The plaintiff was employed by the first defendants as a labourer.

(d)The first defendant was the owner of an eight tonne … mobile crane.

(e)The incident referred to in paragraph 6 … occurred on a road as that term is defined under the Act.

(f)There is not in existence, with respect to the said claim, a policy of insurance issued under … the Act.

(g)As the … crane was not insured, the second defendant is … the insurer, under the Act.

6.At about 3.00 pm on about 14 June 2000 at Duntroon Street, Brendale …
(a)The plaintiff was in the course of his employment acting as a dogman for … the driver of the … crane.

(b)The plaintiff and the (driver) were required to collect … a quantity of steel … and take (it) to the main workshop …

(c)The plaintiff and the (driver) collected the … steel … and were conveying it to the workshop … with the plaintiff walking to the right of the load steadying it.

(d)As the crane travelled onto a guttering dip coming onto the driveway of (the workshop) the wheel of the crane struck the plaintiff…

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 James v B and L Steel Fabrications Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: James v B and L Steel Fabrications Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 25
Case: [2004] QSC 25
Decision Date: 27 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In James v B and L Steel Fabrications Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, James, sought to recover damages for injuries caused by an industrial crane, operated by the first defendant, B and L Steel Fabrications Pty Ltd. The dispute involved whether the accident occurred on a road, which would invoke the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), or elsewhere, which would allow James to sue for damages under common law. The matter was before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court was required to decide whether the question of whether the accident occurred on a road could be determined at a preliminary trial, and if so, whether the first defendant's defence should be struck out. Additionally, the court needed to address the application of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) to the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the question of whether the accident occurred on a road could be determined at a preliminary trial. However, the court held that the first defendant's defence was not appropriate for striking out at this stage. The court dismissed the application and ordered the first defendant to pay the second defendant's and plaintiff's costs of the application, to be assessed on the standard basis. This decision clarified the procedural approach to determining the applicability of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) in cases involving industrial cranes and potential road incidents.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application dismissed

2. The first defendant’s defence of 13 November 2003 be struck out

3. The first defendant pay the second defendant’s and plaintiff’s costs of the application 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:	James v B & L Steel Fabrications Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] QSC 025
PARTIES:	SCOTT WALTER JAMES (plaintiff) v B & L STEEL FABRICATIONS PTY LTD (ACN 010 334 335) (first defendant) and THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT (second defendant)
FILE NO:	SC No 8620 of 2003
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	27 February 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 February 2004
JUDGE:	Chesterman J
ORDER:	1. Application dismissed 2. The first defendant’s defence of 13 November 2003 be struck out 3. The first defendant pay the second defendant’s and plaintiff’s costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis
CATCHWORDS:	INSURANCE – THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE – MOTOR VEHICLES – COMPULSORY INSURANCE LEGISLATION – UNINSURED VEHICLES – QUEENSLAND – application of Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) – where plaintiff injured by an industrial crane – where uncertainty as to whether accident occurred on a road PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – OTHER MATTERS BEFORE TRIAL – whether question of whether accident occurred on a road can be determined at a preliminary trial
COUNSEL:	K T Magee for the first defendant/applicant J B Rolls for the plaintiff/respondent K N Wilson SC for the second defendant/respondent
SOLICITORS:	Damien Bourke & Associates for the first defendant/applicant Carter Capner for the plaintiff/respondent Hunt & Hunt for the second defendant/respondent