Lawes v Nominal Defendant

Case [2007] QCA 367

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lawes v Nominal Defendant [2007] QCA 367

PARTIES:

RICKY LEE LAWES
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
NOMINAL DEFENDANT
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 4281 of 2007
Appeal No 4623 of 2007
SC No 1930 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 October 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 September 2007

JUDGES:

Jerrard and Muir JJA and Jones J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

INSURANCE – THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE – MOTOR VEHICLES – COMPULSORY INSURANCE LEGISLATION – WHERE IDENTITY OF VEHICLE CAN NOT BE ESTABLISHED – QUEENSLAND – GENERALLY – where the respondent’s motorcycle collided with a horse laying on road as a result of a collision with an unidentified vehicle – where trial judge held the nominal defendant liable in respect of the injuries sustained by the respondent – whether trial judge erred in his construction and application of s 5(1) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL- GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – where the respondent’s motorcycle collided with a horse laying on road as a result of a collision with an unidentified vehicle – where trial judge held the nominal defendant liable in respect of the injuries sustained by the respondent – whether the trial judge erred in finding that the driver of the unidentified vehicle knew or ought to have known that they had created an obstacle on the road – whether the trial judge had erred in finding that there was a nexus between the ‘wrongful act or omission’ and the unidentified vehicle

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 3, s 5(1), 33(1)
Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Road Rules) Regulation 1999 (Qld), s 221

Brew v WorkCover Queensland [2004] 1 Qd R 621; [2003] QCA 504, applied
Coley v Nominal Defendant [2004] 1 Qd R 239; [2003] QCA 181, cited
Coster v Boral Gas (Qld) Pty Ltd [1986] 1 Qd R 393, distinguished

Curtain Bros (Qld) Pty Ltd v FAI General Insurance Company Limited [1995] 1 Qd R 142, cited
Evans v Transit Australia Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 30; [2000] QCA 512, cited
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118, applied
Glover v Politanski (1990) 2 Qd R 41, cited
Lawes v Nominal Defendant[2007] QSC 092, affirmed
Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10, cited
Pennington v Wolfe 262 F Supp 2 d 1254, cited
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, applied
Raschke v Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2005] 2 Qd R 549; [2005] QCA 161, considered
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1984-1985) 157 CLR 424, cited
Technical Products Pty Ltd v State Government Insurance Office (Qld) (1989) 167 CLR 45, applied
Ticehurst v Skeen (1986) 3 MVR 307, cited

Continue reading Lawes v Nominal Defendant

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lawes v Nominal Defendant [2007] QCA 367
Case
[2007] QCA 367
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lawes v Nominal Defendant, the respondent, Lawes, sued the nominal defendant for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. The incident involved Lawes' motorcycle colliding with a horse that had been thrown onto the road by a preceding collision involving an unidentified vehicle. The trial judge found the nominal defendant liable for Lawes' injuries under s 5(1) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). The nominal defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the trial judge had erred in his findings regarding the driver of the unidentified vehicle's knowledge of the obstruction on the road and the causal connection between the obstruction and Lawes' injuries.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had correctly interpreted and applied s 5(1) of the Act. The section stipulates that the insurer of a motor vehicle must compensate a third party for injuries caused by a wrongful act or omission of the driver of the insured vehicle. The nominal defendant contended that the trial judge had erred in concluding that the driver of the unidentified vehicle had created an obstacle on the road and that there was a causal link between this act and Lawes' injuries. The court had to determine whether the trial judge's findings on these matters were correct, and if not, whether this warranted overturning the decision.

The court found that the trial judge's assessment of the facts was well-founded and not open to interference. The evidence presented supported the trial judge's conclusion that the driver of the unidentified vehicle had created an obstruction on the road by colliding with the horse, and that this obstruction was a direct cause of Lawes' injuries. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately applied the statutory provisions and that there was no basis to disturb his findings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to Lawes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

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.