Lowe v AMP Capital Investors Ltd

[2011] QDC 291

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 418 of 2010

EVE LOWE	Plaintiff
and
AMP CAPITAL INVESTORS LIMITED (ACN 001 777 591) & ORS	Defendants

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/11/2011

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Plaintiff adjudged entitled to damages against third defendant which the court assessed - first and second defendants had agreed to pay undisclosed damages for the same injury - court declines to adjourn proceeding to the "settlement list" to enable all parties to adjust matters - future date fixed, anticipating dismissal of claim being ordered after agreed terms have been carried out
HIS HONOUR: The matter will be adjourned to the
29th of February 2012 rather than the 1st of February 2012 as proposed by the parties which happens to be a day when I'll be on leave. The difficulty that arises is that the Court is unwilling to meet the parties proposal that the proceeding be placed on the “settlement list”. My understanding is that there is no such thing as the settlement list.

A trial occurred to resolve issues between the plaintiff and the third defendant, Airlite Cleaning Pty Ltd, issues between her and the other defendants having been resolved favourably to her, independently. There may well be inappropriate aspects of an outcome which simply gives the plaintiff in full the fruits of a judgment, the parameters of which were arrived at after a hearing, on the basis that only the plaintiff and Airlite Cleaning Pty Ltd were involved. See [2011] QDC 267. In other words, the plaintiff might recover double compensation.

The e-mail exchange suggests that what the parties really require is time for the working out of arrangements that have been agreed upon once the plaintiff is in a position of enjoying the fruits of her various victories. It's a matter of no consequence, one would think, what order the Court might make to finally dispose of the proceeding from the point of view of getting its own paperwork in order.

Counsel, Mr Simpson's latest email communication suggests a willingness for the Court to make an order dismissing the proceeding on the 1st of February 2012. That's not a convenient date for the Court, as it happens, which is why the 29th of February 2012 will be the date instead.

Mr Simpson offered attendance by the relevant parties' legal representatives on that date but the Court is not particularly inclined to require the incurring of costs by legal representatives attending. I thought there'd only be need for that to occur on the 29th of February 2012 should there be some reason why it's not appropriate for the proceeding to be ordered dismissed.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lowe v AMP Capital Investors Ltd, the plaintiff, Eve Lowe, sought damages against the defendants, including Airlite Cleaning Pty Ltd, for injuries sustained in a workplace accident. The legal dispute centred around the calculation of damages and the potential for double compensation. Lowe had already secured favourable outcomes against the first and second defendants, and the trial against the third defendant, Airlite Cleaning Pty Ltd, had been conducted. The court had to determine whether to adjourn the case to enable the parties to work out their agreed arrangements and whether the plaintiff could recover double compensation.

The primary legal issue was whether the court should allow the proceeding to be placed on a "settlement list" to facilitate the resolution of agreed terms, and if the plaintiff could be awarded double compensation. The court reasoned that placing the case on the settlement list was not appropriate as there was no such list. The court was concerned that if the proceeding was dismissed after the agreed terms were carried out, the plaintiff might recover double compensation. The court considered the e-mail exchange between the parties, which indicated a need for time to work out their agreed arrangements. The court also noted that it would not require the parties' legal representatives to incur costs by attending the scheduled date unless necessary.

The court decided to adjourn the proceeding to 29 February 2012 instead of the proposed 1 February 2012, which was a day when the judge would be on leave. The court was open to making an order dismissing the proceeding on 1 February 2012, provided there was no reason against it. The court did not intend to require the parties' legal representatives to attend on 29 February 2012 unless there was a valid reason not to dismiss the proceeding. The court aimed to ensure that the paperwork was in order and that the plaintiff did not recover double compensation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established