SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
PARTIES:
TONI ANNE MCCHESNEY (BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN JANICE ANNE MCCHESNEY)
(plaintiff)
v
MUKHTIAR SINGH
(first defendant)
and
PETER AARON HOPKINS
(second defendant)
and
SUNCORP INSURANCE AND FINANCE
(third defendant)
and
SUNCORP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 075 695 966)
(fourth defendant)
and
FAI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (ACN 000 327 855)
(fifth defendant)FILE NO/S:
SC No 8851 of 1998
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Civil Trial- Further orders
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
4 April 2003
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
18 March 2003
JUDGE:
Mackenzie J
ORDER:
Pursuant to s 59(1) of the Public Trustee Act 1978 (Qld), terms of settlement of this proceeding agreed between the parties, in so far as the same relate to the amount of $119,830.00 to be recovered by the plaintiff by way of administration and management fees, be approved and sanctioned.1.
The order of 7 October 2002 be varied by, in paragraph 1 thereof, deleting the expression “1,885,276” and inserting in lieu thereof the expression $1,918,215.75”. 2.
National Australia Trustees Limited (“the Administrator”) be appointed Financial Administrator to administer the moneys to be paid to it on behalf of the plaintiff after payment of the sums referred to in paragraphs 10(a) and 10(b) hereof.3.
The Administrator take possession of and control and manage the trust fund to be constituted by the balance of the moneys referred to in paragraph 10 hereof in such manner as the Administrator thinks fit for the benefit of the plaintiff generally with the powers and duties defined and conferred by the Trusts Act 1973.4.
The Administrator have power to invest for and on behalf of the plaintiff pursuant to s 51 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld).5.
A copy of this order be delivered forthwith to the Administrator by the plaintiff’s solicitors.6.
The Registrar forthwith give a copy of this order to the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal.7.
In addition to the revised judgment sum of $1,918,215.75 referred to in paragraph 2 hereof, the fourth defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of $119,830.00, being the amount agreed by way of administration and management fees as provided for in paragraph 1 hereof.8.
In addition to the revised judgment sum of $1,918,215.75 referred to in paragraph 2 hereof, the fourth defendant pay the plaintiff interest at the rate of 7% on the sum of $1,885,276 for a period (unless the parties agree otherwise) from 7 October 2002 until 21 days after the date of this order, or, if payment of the sums referred to in paragraph 10(c) hereof is made on an earlier date, for the period until that date. 9.
The judgment sum of $1,918,215.75, together with the amounts of $119,830.00 and interest referred to in paragraph 9 hereof respectively, be paid by the fourth defendant as follows:10.
To the Health Insurance Commission, such sum as is necessary to satisfy the statutory charge maintained…
Continue reading McChesney v Singh
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- McChesney v Singh [2003] QSC 83
- Case
- [2003] QSC 83
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to address several legal issues, including whether inadvertent errors in the calculation of damages could be corrected under the slip rule, the appropriate rate of interest to apply on the judgment, and the necessity of appointing a financial administrator to protect the plaintiff's interests. Additionally, the court needed to consider the implications of an ongoing appeal on the timing of submissions regarding costs.
The court found that the errors in the initial damages assessment could indeed be corrected under the slip rule, as they were inadvertent and reference to an inappropriate discount table was made. The court also determined that the fourth defendant should pay interest at the prescribed rate from the date of the initial order until the judgment was satisfied, as the delay in settling the management fees issue was attributable to the plaintiff. Regarding the appointment of a financial administrator, the court held that it had the power to act as a Guardianship and Administration Tribunal and appointed National Australia Trustees Limited as the administrator. Finally, the court extended the time for making submissions on costs due to the pending appeal on the quantum of damages.
In conclusion, the court approved the terms of settlement regarding the administration and management fees, corrected the damages calculation, appointed a financial administrator, and determined the appropriate interest rate. The court also extended the time for making submissions on costs pending the outcome of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Pursuant to s 59(1) of the Public Trustee Act 1978 (Qld), terms of settlement of this proceeding agreed between the parties, in so far as the same relate to the amount of $119,830.00 to be recovered by the plaintiff by way of administration and management fees, be approved and sanctioned.1.
The order of 7 October 2002 be varied by, in paragraph 1 thereof, deleting the expression “1,885,276” and inserting in lieu thereof the expression $1,918,215.75”. 2.
National Australia Trustees Limited (“the Administrator”) be appointed Financial Administrator to administer the moneys to be paid to it on behalf of the plaintiff after payment of the sums referred to in paragraphs 10(a) and 10(b) hereof.3.
The Administrator take possession of and control and manage the trust fund to be constituted by the balance of the moneys referred to in paragraph 10 hereof in such manner as the Administrator thinks fit for the benefit of the plaintiff generally with the powers and duties defined and conferred by the Trusts Act 1973.4.
The Administrator have power to invest for and on behalf of the plaintiff pursuant to s 51 of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld).5.
A copy of this order be delivered forthwith to the Administrator by the plaintiff’s solicitors.6.
The Registrar forthwith give a copy of this order to the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal.7.
In addition to the revised judgment sum of $1,918,215.75 referred to in paragraph 2 hereof, the fourth defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of $119,830.00, being the amount agreed by way of administration and management fees as provided for in paragraph 1 hereof.8.
In addition to the revised judgment sum of $1,918,215.75 referred to in paragraph 2 hereof, the fourth defendant pay the plaintiff interest at the rate of 7% on the sum of $1,885,276 for a period (unless the parties agree otherwise) from 7 October 2002 until 21 days after the date of this order, or, if payment of the sums referred to in paragraph 10(c) hereof is made on an earlier date, for the period until that date. 9.
The judgment sum of $1,918,215.75, together with the amounts of $119,830.00 and interest referred to in paragraph 9 hereof respectively, be paid by the fourth defendant as follows:10.
To the Health Insurance Commission, such sum as is necessary to satisfy the statutory charge maintained by that entity, the receipt of the Health Insurance Commission therefor to be a sufficient discharge to the fourth defendant.(a)
To Centrelink, such sum as is the subject of a formal recovery notice, the receipt of Centrelink therefore to be a sufficient discharge to the fourth defendant.(b)
To the plaintiff’s administrator appointed under paragraph 3 hereof, the balance of the judgment sum of $1,918,215.75 and the amounts of $119,830.00 and interest referred to in paragraph 9 hereof respectively, whose receipt therefor shall be a sufficient discharge to the fourth defendant.(c)
Subject to paragraph 12, the fourth defendant pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application to be agreed, or if not agreed, to be assessed.11.
Insofar as the application relates to costs of and incidental to the proceedings, the application be adjourned to a date to be fixed, with costs reserved.12.
The time for making submissions as to costs of and incidental to the proceedings be extended for a period of 14 days after determination by the Court of Appeal of the appeal now pending therein or other determination of the appeal.13.
14. The parties and the Administrator be at liberty to apply for further directions as to the disbursement of the moneys to be held in trust as aforesaid.
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.