SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Martens v Stokes & Anor [2012] QCA 36
PARTIES:
FREDERICK ARTHUR MARTENS
(appellant)
v
TANIA ANN STOKES
(first respondent)
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
(second respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 3514 of 2011
SC No 613 of 2010DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
2 March 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
12 August 2011
JUDGES:
Margaret McMurdo P and White JA and Margaret Wilson AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the order striking out the claim and statement of claim.
3. Instead, order that the statement of claim be struck out.
4. Order that the appellant have leave to file and serve a further statement of claim on or before 13 April 2012.
5. Order that any application for interlocutory orders be made to the Trial Division.
6. The parties are to provide written submissions as to costs in accordance with Practice Direction No 2 of 2010 paragraph 52.
CATCHWORDS:
STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – GENERAL APPROACHES TO INTERPRETATION – GENERAL WORDS – where the appellant contended that his claim was outside the scope of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) – where the appellant contended that his injuries did not arise out of “an incident” within the meaning of s 6 PIPA – where appellant contended that his claim for malicious prosecution could not be described as “a claim” under the Act – where appellant failed to comply with necessary procedure – whether statement of claim was so unsatisfactory that it was unclear whether certain claims were beyond the scope of the Act
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – OPERATION AND EFFECT OF COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION – GENERAL MATTERS – RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMONWEALTH AND STATES GENERALLY – EFFECT OF STATE LAWS ON THE COMMONWEALTH – PARTICULAR CASES – where the claim was within the jurisdictional competence of the Supreme Court of Queensland pursuant to s 56(1)(b) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – where the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) applied by virtue of s 64 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – where Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) applied to appellant’s claims by virtue of s 79 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – where the appellant claimed inconsistency between State and Commonwealth laws – where the state law was found to apply to both the appellant and Commonwealth alike – whether the appellant’s submission on inconsistency was rejected
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – CHOICE OF LAW – TORTS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant claimed that the Commonwealth is jointly liable for torts committed by one of its officers – where the appellant alleged conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, breach of statutory duty, defamation, breach of international obligations to the sovereign state of Papua New Guinea, negligence and perjury – where the appellant submitted that the lex loci…
Continue reading Martens v Stokes
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Martens v Stokes [2012] QCA 36
- Case
- [2012] QCA 36
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the appellant's claims fell within the scope of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), whether the appellant's failure to comply with necessary procedure rendered his statement of claim unsatisfactory, and whether there was an inconsistency between state and Commonwealth laws. Furthermore, the court had to determine the appropriate lex loci delicti for the torts alleged to have occurred in Australia and the applicability of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) to claims for personal injuries.
The court held that the appellant's claims did fall within the scope of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), rejecting his argument that his claim for malicious prosecution could not be described as a claim under the Act. The court also found that the appellant's statement of claim was unsatisfactory but ordered that it be struck out instead of the entire claim, allowing the appellant to file a further statement of claim by a specified date. The court rejected the appellant's submission regarding the inconsistency between state and Commonwealth laws and determined that Queensland law applied as the lex loci delicti for the torts occurring in Australia.
The orders made by the court included allowing the appeal, setting aside the order striking out the claim and instead ordering the statement of claim to be struck out, granting the appellant leave to file a further statement of claim by a certain date, and directing any application for interlocutory orders to be made to the Trial Division. The court also required the parties to provide written submissions regarding costs in accordance with the relevant practice direction.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the order striking out the claim and statement of claim.
3. Instead, order that the statement of claim be struck out.
4. Order that the appellant have leave to file and serve a further statement of claim on or before 13 April 2012.
5. Order that any application for interlocutory orders be made to the Trial Division.
6. The parties are to provide written submissions as to costs in accordance with Practice Direction No 2 of 2010 paragraph 52.
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.