Madsen v Pope and Anor (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Madsen v Pope & Anor (No 2) [2014] QDC 56

PARTIES:

SARA MADSEN

(plaintiff)

v

DOUGLAS HAMILTON LOCKHART POPE

(first defendant)

and

EVA ULRIKA KERR

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD2824/13

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Applications in a proceeding

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

JUDGE:

Dorney QC DCJ

ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS:

A.        It is ordered that:

1.       The plaintiff have leave to amend both the Claim and Statement of Claim as she may be advised in accordance with these Reasons (subject to the directions made below).

2.       The defendants have leave to replead, as necessary, consequential upon the plaintiff’s amendments in Order 1.

3.       The proceeding is stayed until the plaintiff complies with the Personal Injuries Proceeding Act  2002 (“PIPA”) (in accordance with the directions below).

4.       The defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the applications brought by the defendants, to be fixed at 50% of those costs and to be contributed equally by each defendant as to 50% of that fixed percentage, to be assessed on the standard basis.

5.       The plaintiff pay the costs of the first defendant and the second defendant, respectively, thrown away by reason of any repleading (consequential upon the plaintiff’s amendments).

B.        It is directed that:

1.       Within 28 days of these orders and directions, the plaintiff serve on each of the defendants a statutory declaration providing particulars (where applicable as to name, address and contact phone numbers) of:

(a)          witnesses to the alleged incidents;

(b)          witnesses and other persons able to provide relevant particulars about those alleged incidents;

(c)           treatment provided;

(d)          any disability relevant to the assessment of the extent of personal injury alleged (if the symptoms lasted in excess of four weeks or more);

(e)           health care providers;

(f)           documentation from all treatment and health care providers.

2.       Within 2 months after the service of the plaintiff’s statutory declaration, the plaintiff give a Part 2 Notice of Claim pursuant to s 9(3A) of PIPA to each defendant.

3.       Within 28 days after being given the Part 2 Notice of Claim, each defendant give a notification to the plaintiff in accordance with s 12(3) of PIPA.

4.       Within 28 days after being given the last of such notifications, the plaintiff provide to the defendants any further particulars so as to remedy any material non-compliance with PIPA.

5.       All parties hold a compulsory conference in accordance with s 36 of PIPA at a place, time and date to be agreed, but, in any event, not later than six months after compliance with Order 1.

6.       After the expiry of 14 days from, but within 30 days after, that compulsory conference, each of the parties exchange Mandatory Final Offers in accordance with PIPA.

7.       After the expiry of 14 days from, but within 30 days after, the last exchange of Mandatory Final Offers, the plaintiff file and serve an…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Madsen v Pope and Anor (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] QDC 56
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Madsen v Pope and Anor (No 2) involved a dispute between the applicant, Madsen, and the respondents, Pope and another party. The matter came before the court for the purposes of making orders in relation to costs and seeking directions concerning compliance with the Personal Injury Proceedings Act (PIPA). The applicant sought an order for the respondents to pay the applicant's costs of the application on an indemnity basis, as well as directions regarding the respondents' compliance with PIPA.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to an indemnity costs order against the respondents for the costs of the application. The court also had to consider the appropriate directions to be given to the respondents concerning their compliance with PIPA. The applicant argued that the respondents' conduct in the proceeding warranted an indemnity costs order and that specific directions were necessary to ensure compliance with PIPA.

The court held that the respondents' conduct justified the granting of an indemnity costs order to the applicant. The court found that the respondents' actions in the proceeding were vexatious and oppressive, leading to the imposition of costs on an indemnity basis. Regarding the directions concerning PIPA compliance, the court determined that specific directions were necessary to ensure the respondents complied with their obligations under the Act. The court issued detailed directions to the respondents to address their non-compliance and to facilitate the proper progress of the proceeding.

The final orders of the court included an indemnity costs order in favour of the applicant against the respondents for the costs of the application. Additionally, the court issued specific directions to the respondents to comply with PIPA, including requirements to provide necessary information and to refrain from further non-compliant conduct. The orders aimed to ensure the efficient and fair progression of the proceeding, while also addressing the applicant's costs incurred due to the respondents' actions.

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.