Meredith v Palmcam P/L

[2000] QCA 113

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Meredith v Palmcam P/L & Anor [2000] QCA 113

PARTIES:

JANIS KARIN MEREDITH
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
PALMCAM PTY LTD
(first defendant/first applicant)
MMI INSURANCE GROUP ACN 000 122 850
(second defendant/second applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 1255 of 2000
DC No 1048 of 1999

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

7 April 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 March 2000

JUDGES:

McPherson and Thomas JJA, Atkinson J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES – whether UCPR require specifics of damages claim to be pleaded

PROCEDURE – INFERIOR COURTS – QUEENSLAND – DISTRICT COURTS – CIVIL JURISDICTION – PRACTICE – PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL – COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION AND PLEADINGS – where there was failure to comply with Rule 444 of UCPR in respect of striking out statement of claim

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – ACTIONS FOR NEGLIGENCE – GENERAL

District Courts Act 1967 (Qld) s 118(3)

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) s 37

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 5(1), 150(1), 155, 443, 444, 547

COUNSEL:

Mr R J Douglas SC for the applicants
Mr R J Oliver for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McInnes Wilson for the applicants

Baker Johnson for the respondents

1. McPHERSON & THOMAS JJA, ATKINSON J: By a claim dated 1 December 1999, the plaintiff started an action in the District Court at Southport claiming $250,000 damages for personal injuries and loss arising out of a motor vehicle collision alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the first defendant or a person for whom it was responsible. The contemporaneous statement of claim alleged various matters relating to the cause of action and damages, and also in para 16 that the second defendant insurer had acknowledged compliance by the plaintiff with requirements of s 37 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994. Having done so, para 17 of the statement of claim went on to plead an admission by the second defendant of liability in respect of the accident; in para 18, that the plaintiff had made an offer to settle; and in para 19, that the second defendant had rejected that offer

1. The pleading in para 17, 18 and 19 of the making of an offer to settle and its rejection was not something that was required or permitted by statute; nor was it proper to allege facts that were not only not material facts on which the plaintiff relied for relief but were the subject of attempts to settle the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff has since acknowledged this by delivering an amended statement of claim in which those allegations are struck out.

1. There remains the question of the way in which the plaintiff's damages are pleaded.  Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the statement of claim are as follows:

"11.  Full particulars of the plaintiff's special damages will…