Laing v Jones - [2022] QSC 234

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Laing v Jones & Anor [2022] QSC 234

PARTIES:

KATHRYN REBECCA LAING

(Plaintiff)

v

SCOTT ANDREW JONES

(First Defendant)

and

AAI LIMITED TRADING AS SUNCORP INSURANCE (ABN 48 005 297 807)

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

581/21

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

28 October 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

21 October 2022

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDERS:

1.   In the application for transfer:

a.   The application is dismissed.

b.   The applicant will pay the respondent’s costs on the standard basis.

2.   In the application to dispense with signing the request for trial date:

a.   On the respondent’s indication it will now proceed to sign the request for trial date, the application is dismissed.

b.   The respondent will pay the applicant’s costs on the standard basis.

3.   The matter is listed for trial on 27 February 2023 for three days with one day reserve.

4.   Orders as per my standard trial directions.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TRIAL – TIME AND PLACE – CHANGE OF VENUE – where claim having no connection with the far northern region commenced in the far northern registry of the Supreme Court – where the second defendant filed an application to transfer the proceeding from the far northern registry to the southern registry of Brisbane – where the plaintiff resides in the Sunshine Coast – where the plaintiff engaged solicitors in the northern region – where at least two lay witnesses who live in the southern region will be called by the second defendant – where liability is admitted and the issue at trial is quantum – whether the proceedings should be transferred to the southern registry of Brisbane

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

Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 s 65
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 39, 469

Clark v Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd [2019] 3 Qd R 136, followed
Frasson v Frasson (2020) 4 Qd R 648, cited

COUNSEL:
P Mylne for the plaintiff

J Treviño KC for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:
O’Shea Dyer Solicitors for the plaintiff

Barry Nilsson Lawyers for the second defendant

The plaintiff suffered personal injury in a motor vehicle collision in Townsville. Her personal injuries claim against the first defendant driver and his insurer, the second defendant, was filed in the Cairns Supreme Court on 4 November 2021. The pleadings and disclosure phases are complete. Liability is admitted. It remains to conduct a trial as to quantum. These reasons are concerned with where and when that trial should be held.
The plaintiff requested the second defendant (referred to hereafter as the defendant) to sign a request for trial date form. On the last day of the 21-day time limit for that process, the defendant…

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 Laing v Jones

Details

AGLC: Laing v Jones [2022] QSC 234
Case: [2022] QSC 234
Decision Date: 28 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Laing v Jones involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Laing, and the second defendant, Jones, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff commenced a claim in the far northern registry of the Supreme Court, despite having no connection with the far northern region. The second defendant filed an application to transfer the proceeding from the far northern registry to the southern registry of Brisbane. The plaintiff resides on the Sunshine Coast and engaged solicitors in the northern region. At least two lay witnesses who live in the southern region will be called by the second defendant. The liability was admitted, and the issue at trial was quantum. The court had to determine whether the proceedings should be transferred to the southern registry of Brisbane.

The legal issues in this case were whether the proceedings should be transferred to the southern registry of Brisbane and whether the plaintiff's application to dispense with the requirement for the second defendant’s signature on the request for trial date should be granted. The court considered the convenience of the witnesses, the location of the parties, and the need for an efficient trial process. The court also examined the procedural requirements for setting down a trial date.

The court dismissed the application for transfer, finding that the matter should remain in the far northern registry of the Supreme Court. The court noted that the plaintiff's residence and the location of the solicitors were not sufficient grounds for a transfer, and the witnesses' location did not warrant a transfer to the southern registry. The court also dismissed the application to dispense with the requirement for the second defendant’s signature on the request for trial date, as the second defendant had indicated they would sign the request. The court ordered that the matter be listed for trial on 27 February 2023 for three days with one day reserve, and that the trial would proceed in accordance with the court's standard trial directions. The second defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on the standard basis for the dismissed application for transfer, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the second defendant's costs on the standard basis for the dismissed application to dispense with signing the request for trial date.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In the application for transfer:

a. The application is dismissed.

b. The applicant will pay the respondent’s costs on the standard basis.

2. In the application to dispense with signing the request for trial date:

a. On the respondent’s indication it will now proceed to sign the request for trial date, the application is dismissed.

b. The respondent will pay the applicant’s costs on the standard basis.

3. The matter is listed for trial on 27 February 2023 for three days with one day reserve.

4. Orders as per my standard trial directions.

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:	Laing v Jones & Anor [2022] QSC 234
PARTIES:	KATHRYN REBECCA LAING (Plaintiff) v SCOTT ANDREW JONES (First Defendant) and AAI LIMITED TRADING AS SUNCORP INSURANCE (ABN 48 005 297 807) (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	581/21
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	28 October 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	21 October 2022
JUDGE:	Henry J
ORDERS:	1. In the application for transfer: a. The application is dismissed. b. The applicant will pay the respondent’s costs on the standard basis. 2. In the application to dispense with signing the request for trial date: a. On the respondent’s indication it will now proceed to sign the request for trial date, the application is dismissed. b. The respondent will pay the applicant’s costs on the standard basis. 3. The matter is listed for trial on 27 February 2023 for three days with one day reserve. 4. Orders as per my standard trial directions.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TRIAL – TIME AND PLACE – CHANGE OF VENUE – where claim having no connection with the far northern region commenced in the far northern registry of the Supreme Court – where the second defendant filed an application to transfer the proceeding from the far northern registry to the southern registry of Brisbane – where the plaintiff resides in the Sunshine Coast – where the plaintiff engaged solicitors in the northern region – where at least two lay witnesses who live in the southern region will be called by the second defendant – where liability is admitted and the issue at trial is quantum – whether the proceedings should be transferred to the southern registry of Brisbane PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – TRIAL – SETTING DOWN FOR TRIAL – where the plaintiff filed an application to dispense with the requirement for the second defendant’s signature on request for trial date Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 s 65 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 39, 469 Clark v Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd [2019] 3 Qd R 136, followed Frasson v Frasson (2020) 4 Qd R 648, cited
COUNSEL:	P Mylne for the plaintiff J Treviño KC for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:	O’Shea Dyer Solicitors for the plaintiff Barry Nilsson Lawyers for the second defendant