JDM v Hodges - [2019] QSC 65

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

JDM v Hodges & Anor [2019] QSC 65

PARTIES:

JDM (Applicant)

v
GEMMA ANNE HODGES

(First Respondent)

and

AAI LIMITED (ABN 48005297807)

(Second Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

No 576 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

19 March 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

1 March 2019, further submissions in writing received 13 March 2019

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDER:

1. I will hear the parties at 9.15am 22 March 2019 as to orders in light of my conclusion the court has no jurisdiction to determine the application.

CATCHWORDS:

HEALTH LAW – GUARDIANSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY OF PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED CAPACITY – ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – JURISDICTION, PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE – where the applicant is the beneficiary of settlement monies arising from a personal injuries claim, but has an impaired capacity to manage its administration – where the applicant seeks orders for and in connection with the appointment of an administrator – whether the Court has jurisdiction to make the orders sought, either under sections 12 and 245 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 or in the exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) ss 12, 245

Re W (A Minor) (Medical Treatment) [1992] 4 All ER 627

Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB & SMB (Marion’s Case) (1992) 175 CLR 218

Wellesley v Wellesley (1828) 4 ER 1078

Adams v AAI (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, McMurdo J, 16 June 2014)

COUNSEL:

M D Glen for the applicant

M Grant-Taylor QC for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Murray Lyons Solicitors for the applicant

Bray Lawyers for the second respondent

The applicant seeks orders for and in connection with the appointment of an administrator under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) (“the Act”). The appointment is sought because the applicant, who is under an impaired capacity for a financial matter under the Act, is the beneficiary of settlement monies said to be payable under the settlement of a personal injuries claim.
The second respondent queries whether this Court has jurisdiction to appoint an administrator. It also asserts the Court should not itself assess the administration and management fees to be paid to the administrator because there has been an agreement between the parties that the relevant amount is $319,970.77. The applicant denies there has been any such agreement and seeks an assessment in the amount $418,000.
Background
The applicant, JDM,[1] is now 23. She was 12 years old when among a group of suburban pedestrians by a negligently driven vehicle. The accident caused the death of her grandmother, physical injury to her mother and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder to JDM.
[1] Identity anonymised for the purposes of these public reasons.
JDM’s disorder persists, despite her having received considerable treatment for her psychiatric symptomatology. She has poor capacity for learning and memory and is said to have a borderline to dull normal range of intelligence quotient of 68. She…

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 JDM v Hodges

Details

AGLC: JDM v Hodges [2019] QSC 65
Case: [2019] QSC 65
Decision Date: 19 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of JDM v Hodges involved the applicant, who was a beneficiary of settlement monies from a personal injuries claim, seeking orders for the appointment of an administrator due to their impaired capacity to manage the settlement. The court was tasked with determining whether it had jurisdiction to make the orders sought under sections 12 and 245 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 or in the exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction. The settlement had occurred against the backdrop of a claim and statement of claim filed in the District Court at Cairns on 14 May 2015. A conference was convened in October 2016, and a release document was executed on 17 November 2016. The release document contained several drafting errors, including the omission of an agreement to pay administration and management fees separately, despite these fees being excluded from the definition of settlement monies.

The court had to decide whether it could grant the orders sought by the applicant, given the errors in the release document and the nature of the settlement. The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the application. The court found that the errors in the release document did not provide a sufficient basis for it to intervene in the matter, as it would require making determinations that went beyond what was contemplated by the parties in the settlement. The court also noted that the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 did not provide a clear basis for the court to make the orders sought. Ultimately, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the application.

The court did not make any specific orders in relation to the application, as it determined it did not have jurisdiction to do so. The matter was to be heard on 22 March 2019 to discuss any potential orders in light of the court's conclusion. The court's decision highlights the importance of careful drafting in settlement agreements and the limitations of the court's jurisdiction in making orders related to the administration of settlement monies.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I will hear the parties at 9.15am 22 March 2019 as to orders in light of my conclusion the court has no jurisdiction to determine the application.

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

That settlement occurred against a background where a claim and statement of claim were filed on 14 May 2015 in the District Court at Cairns and a conference was convened in October 2016 apparently pursuant to r 553 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (“UCPR”). The terms of settlement were recited in a poorly drafted release document executed on 17 November 2016. The release recorded, inter alia:“IN CONSIDERATION of Suncorp Insurance paying to the person described in the Schedule as “the Releasor” the sum of money referred to in the Schedule as “The Settlement Monies” in full and final satisfaction and discharge of all claims whatsoever which the Releasor, or any person on behalf of the Releasor, may have arising as a result of, or in any way connected with the matter described in the Schedule as “The Incident”TERMS OF RELEASEThe releasor: …”[3][3] Affidavit of Jamie McAlister court doc 2 Ex JGM1. The ensuing terms of release included release and discharge provisions, an agreement to file a notice of discontinuance in “the Present Proceedings”, and a number of authorisations and acknowledgments. The acknowledgment as to the composition of the settlement monies was not exhaustive and merely recorded that they included amounts for past economic loss and future economic loss, but not an apportionment for contributory negligence. According to the release (term 1) the meaning of “the Present Proceedings” was supposed to be described in the schedule but no such description appears. This was not the only drafting error. Surprisingly, the release did not record any agreement for the payment of administration and management fees separately to the agreement to pay settlement monies, yet the definition of settlement monies in the schedule to the release excluded administration and management fees. The definition was as follows:“The Settlement Monies: $600,000·Inclusive of all heads of damage and statutory refunds;·Inclusive of amounts paid by or on behalf of AAI Limited …·Exclusive of standard costs and outlays to be agreed or assessed pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules;·Exclusive of reasonable costs associated with the sanction to be agreed or assessed;·Exclusive of reasonable administration and management fees to be agreed or assessed …”[4]The document did not identify who was supposed to assess the administration and management fees if they were not agreed. The above quoted words “the sanction” were not explained elsewhere in the document either.[4] Affidavit of Jamie McAlister court doc 2 Ex JGM1. Despite the literal terms of the release and schedule excluding the requirement to pay administration and management fees, the second respondent concedes it was implicit in those terms that, in addition to paying the $600,000 settlement amount as primary damages, the second respondent agreed to pay “reasonable administration and management fees to be agreed or assessed”. That is a fair concession. If administration and management fees were not intended to be agreed to be paid there would have been no need to include the words “to be agreed or assessed”. The inclusion of such words makes it obvious there was a mutual error in drafting and the second respondent must have agreed an amount so defined would be paid in addition to the settlement monies.

CITATION:	JDM v Hodges & Anor [2019] QSC 65
PARTIES:	JDM (Applicant) v GEMMA ANNE HODGES (First Respondent) and AAI LIMITED (ABN 48005297807) (Second Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	No 576 of 2018
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	19 March 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	1 March 2019, further submissions in writing received 13 March 2019
JUDGE:	Henry J
ORDER:	1. I will hear the parties at 9.15am 22 March 2019 as to orders in light of my conclusion the court has no jurisdiction to determine the application.
CATCHWORDS:	HEALTH LAW – GUARDIANSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY OF PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED CAPACITY – ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT – JURISDICTION, PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE – where the applicant is the beneficiary of settlement monies arising from a personal injuries claim, but has an impaired capacity to manage its administration – where the applicant seeks orders for and in connection with the appointment of an administrator – whether the Court has jurisdiction to make the orders sought, either under sections 12 and 245 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 or in the exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) ss 12, 245 Re W (A Minor) (Medical Treatment) [1992] 4 All ER 627 Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB & SMB (Marion’s Case) (1992) 175 CLR 218 Wellesley v Wellesley (1828) 4 ER 1078 Adams v AAI (Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, McMurdo J, 16 June 2014)
COUNSEL:	M D Glen for the applicant M Grant-Taylor QC for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Murray Lyons Solicitors for the applicant Bray Lawyers for the second respondent