Lawrence and Lawrence v National Transport Insurance and Perriman

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 336
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 278 of 1995

Brisbane

[National Transport Insurance Ltd v. Lawrence & Anor]

Before: Macrossan CJ

Derrington J
White J

BETWEEN:

TREVOR J. LAWRENCE AND JUDITH A. LAWRENCE

(Defendants) Respondents

AND:

NATIONAL TRANSPORT INSURANCE LTD

(Third Party) Appellant
STANLEY LAWRENCE PERRIMAN
(Plaintiff)

REASONS FOR FURTHER ORDER - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 30 August 1996

Further Order delivered 30 September 1997

Opportunity having been given to the parties through their solicitors to lodge further submissions, now

further order confirming and to any necessary extent extending the order of 30 August 1996 by

declaring that the appellant is to have the costs of the respondents’ claim against it below and of the

appeal.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 278 of 1995

Brisbane

[National Transport Insurance Ltd v. Lawrence & Anor]

BETWEEN:

TREVOR J. LAWRENCE AND JUDITH A. LAWRENCE

(Defendants) Respondents

AND:

NATIONAL TRANSPORT INSURANCE LTD

(Third Party) Appellant
STANLEY LAWRENCE PERRIMAN
(Plaintiff)
Macrossan CJ
Derrington J
White J

Judgment delivered 30 August 1996
Further Order delivered 30 September 1997

FURTHER ORDER CONFIRMING AND TO ANY NECESSARY EXTENT EXTENDING THE ORDER OF 30 AUGUST 1996 BY DECLARING THAT THE APPELLANT IS TO HAVE THE COSTS OF THE RESPONDENTS’ CLAIM AGAINST IT BELOW AND OF THE APPEAL.

Counsel:	Mr S. Williams QC and with him Mr M. O’Sullivan for the appellant. Mr R. Myers for the respondents.
Solicitors:	Minter Ellison for the appellant. Clayton Utz as t/a for Lee Williams and Associates for the respondents.
Hearing Date:	16 August 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves the respondents, Trevor J. Lawrence and Judith A. Lawrence, who are suing the appellant, National Transport Insurance Ltd. The suit was initiated by the plaintiff, Stanley Lawrence Perriman, who is not directly involved in the appeal. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland's Court of Appeal. The primary legal issues revolve around the costs incurred by the respondents in their claim against the appellant and the appeal itself, specifically whether the appellant should bear these costs.

The court considered the circumstances under which the respondents' claim was initiated and the subsequent appeal. It was noted that the respondents' claim against the appellant was dismissed, and the appeal was also unsuccessful. The court evaluated the necessity and appropriateness of ordering the appellant to cover the respondents' costs, both at the initial trial and during the appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the respondents' claim was without merit and that the appeal was similarly without substance. Given these findings, the court determined that it was just and equitable to order the appellant to pay the respondents' costs.

Following the court's reasoning, the Court of Appeal delivered a further order confirming and extending the previous order of 30 August 1996. This order declared that the appellant is to bear the costs of the respondents' claim against it at the trial level and the costs of the appeal. This decision underscores the court's stance on the lack of merit in the respondents' actions and the appellant's successful defense against both the initial claim and the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established