Kim v Cole

Case [2002] QCA 176


[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.

‑‑‑‑‑

Details
AGLC
Kim v Cole [2002] QCA 176
Case
[2002] QCA 176
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal heard an appeal in Kim v Cole, where the first defendant, Carole Cole, sought to appeal a decision apportioning damages between herself and Michael Hurst, the second defendant. Wesfarmers Federation Insurance Ltd, the third party, also sought to appeal. The plaintiffs, Jae-Won Kim and Dong Hee Kim, were not parties to either appeal. The appeals arose from a motor vehicle accident, which resulted in significant injuries to the plaintiffs. The legal issues that the Court of Appeal had to decide included the apportionment of damages between the first and second defendants and the validity of the third party proceedings brought by Hurst against Cole.

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.