Kember v Carl & Anor

Case [2020] QSC 105


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Kember v Carl & Anor [2020] QSC 105

PARTIES:

REX MAXWELL JOHN KEMBER

(plaintiff)

v

RAYMOND LESLIE CARL
(first defendant)
AAI LIMITED T/A SUNCORP INSURANCE

ACN 005 297 807
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 670 of 2019

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

7 May 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

5 May 2020

JUDGE:

Crow J

ORDER:

1.   The requirement for the defendants to sign the Form 48, Request for Trial Date is dispensed with.

2.   This proceeding is transferred to the Supreme Court at Brisbane.

3.   If the parties cannot agree as to costs, written submissions as to costs are to be filed as follows:

a.     Defendant’s submissions by 11 May 2020.   

b.     Plaintiff’s submissions by 13 May 2020.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TRIAL – TIME AND PLACE – where the plaintiff instituted proceedings against the defendants in the Central Regional Registry at Rockhampton – where the second defendant filed an application to transfer the proceeding from the Central Regional Registry to Southern Regional Registry of Brisbane – where there is no connection to the Central Region in respect of the initial cause of action – where the plaintiff resides in Southern Region - where the plaintiff engaged solicitors residing in the Central Region – where the parties intends to call expert witnesses from the Southern Region – where the parties intend to call lay witnesses from the Southern Region - whether the proceeding should be transferred to Southern Regional Registry

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS –TRIAL – SETTING DOWN FOR TRIAL - where plaintiff file application to dispense with requirement for defendant’s signature on request for trial date

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 39, r 469

National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v Sentry Corporation & Anor (1988) 19 FCR 115, considered
Clark v Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd [2019] 3 Qd R 136; [2018] QSC 253, followed
Manasse v Shine Lawyers Pty Ltd [2019] QSC 123, cited

COUNSEL:

S J Deaves for the plaintiff

M Grant-Taylor QC for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

Chris Trevor & Associates for the plaintiff

Jensen McConaghy for the second defendant

  1. On 5 December 2015, Mr Kember suffered serious personal injury in a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of Bruce Highway and Uhlmann Road, Burpengary. Liability has been admitted.

  2. Despite being injured in Burpengary and residing in North Lakes, Mr Kember retained Chris Trevor & Associates of Gladstone to act on his behalf. There can be no criticism of Mr Kember in this regard. Mr Kember is entitled to retain a solicitor in which he has trust and confidence.

  3. Mr Kember has been assessed by a number of medical experts; Dr Morgan, Dr Estensen, Dr FitzPatrick, Dr Jetnikoff and the occupational therapists, Mr Hoey and Mr Zietek. All of these experts practice in Brisbane.

  4. On 6 August 2019, a…

Continue reading Kember v Carl & Anor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kember v Carl & Anor [2020] QSC 105
Case
[2020] QSC 105
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kember v Carl & Anor involved a legal dispute between the plaintiff, Kember, and two defendants, Carl and another party. The plaintiff initiated proceedings against the defendants at the Central Regional Registry in Rockhampton, alleging a cause of action. Subsequently, the second defendant applied to transfer the proceedings from the Central Regional Registry to the Southern Regional Registry in Brisbane. The application was based on the lack of a connection to the Central Region concerning the initial cause of action, the plaintiff's residence in the Southern Region, and the intention of both parties to call expert and lay witnesses from the Southern Region.

The court was required to determine whether the proceedings should be transferred to the Southern Regional Registry of Brisbane. The legal issue hinged on the appropriate venue for the trial, considering the factors mentioned above. The court had to weigh the convenience of the parties and witnesses against the procedural requirements and the administrative considerations of the court system.

The court found that the Southern Regional Registry in Brisbane was a more appropriate venue for the trial, given the plaintiff's residence in that region and the intended witnesses' locations. Consequently, the court granted the second defendant's application to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court at Brisbane. Additionally, the court dispensed with the requirement for the defendants to sign the Form 48, Request for Trial Date, streamlining the trial process. The court also set a timeline for the parties to submit written costs submissions if they could not agree on the costs involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The requirement for the defendants to sign the Form 48, Request for Trial Date is dispensed with.

2. This proceeding is transferred to the Supreme Court at Brisbane.

3. If the parties cannot agree as to costs, written submissions as to costs are to be filed as follows:

a. Defendant’s submissions by 11 May 2020.

b. Plaintiff’s submissions by 13 May 2020.

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.