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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] QDC 56
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.