[2002] QCA 176
COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
McPHERSON JA
HELMAN J
Appeal No 7772 of 2001
JAE-WON KIM and DONG HEE KIM Plaintiff (Not a party)
and
CAROLE COLE First Defendant (Appellant)
and
MICHAEL WILLIAM HURST Second Defendant (First Respondent)
and
WESFARMERS FEDERATION INSURANCE
LTD (ACN 009 027 221) Third Party (Second Respondent)
Appeal No 8074 of 2001
JAE-WON KIM and DONG HEE KIM Plaintiff (Not a party)
and
CAROLE COLE First Defendant (Not a party)
and
MICHAEL WILLIAM HURST Second Defendant (Respondent)
and
WESFARMERS FEDERATION INSURANCE LTD
(ACN 009 027 221) Third Party (Appellant)
BRISBANE
..DATE 24/05/2002
JUDGMENT
WILLIAMS JA: In this matter the Court comprised the President and Justices McPherson and Helman. The order in Appeal Number 7772 of 2001 is as follows:
(1)Appeal against the apportionment of damages between the appellant Cole and respondent Hurst dismissed with costs;
(2)Appeal allowed by setting aside judgment with costs in favour of the defendant Hurst and substituting judgment for the plaintiff Cole in the sum of $25,000 with interest and costs on the Magistrates Court scale.
In Appeal 8074, appeal allowed with costs; the judgment set aside with costs; in lieu thereof there be judgment dismissing with costs the third party proceedings against the appellant brought by the respondent second defendant.
I publish the separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Justice Helman dissenting in part.
‑‑‑‑‑
- AGLC
- Kim v Cole [2002] QCA 176
- Case
- [2002] QCA 176
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal held that the apportionment of damages between Cole and Hurst was not unreasonable and thus dismissed the appeal against that aspect of the decision. However, the Court found that the decision to award damages to Cole was flawed and set aside the original judgment. The Court substituted a new judgment in favour of Cole for the sum of $25,000 with interest and costs. The Court also dismissed the third party proceedings brought by Hurst against Cole, ordering that the proceedings be dismissed with costs. The reasoning behind these decisions was that the original judgment did not properly account for the relative contributions to the accident and the damages awarded to Cole were inadequate.
The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the appeal against the apportionment of damages between Cole and Hurst was dismissed with costs, while the appeal against the award of damages to Cole was allowed. The original judgment was set aside, and a new judgment was entered in favour of Cole for $25,000 with interest and costs. Additionally, the third party proceedings brought by Hurst against Cole were dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.