Legal Research
Cases
Miles v. Miles

Miles v. Miles

Case [1999] QCA 482 18 November 1999

Appeal

Costs

Consent Order

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[1999] QCA 482

COURT OF APPEAL

THOMAS JA

Appeal No 10042 of 1999

CARMEL MARY MILES Respondent/Plaintiff

BRIAN DAVID MILES Appellant/Defendant

ANGIE STAVROS PELECHOS Appellant/Defendant

SUNCORP INSURANCE & FINANCE Appellant/Defendant

BRISBANE

DATE 18/11/99

ORDER

MR DUTNEY: Your Honour, can I hand up a consent order.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, that seems in order. You are both content with the terms, gentlemen. I do not see any problems in its working out.

MR DUTNEY: I don't think so, Your Honour. It simply preserves the fund in the event that the appeal reduces the award.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Order as per draft.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I agree.

HELMAN J: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Costs will be reserved pending the Court's further consideration of the matter.

Details

AGLC: Miles v Miles [1999] QCA 482
Case: [1999] QCA 482
Decision Date: 18 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Miles v. Miles, the respondent, Carmel Mary Miles, sought a review of a consent order made in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellants, Brian David Miles, Angie Stavros Pelechos, and Suncorp Insurance & Finance, contested the order. The primary dispute centred on the distribution of a settlement fund resulting from a motor vehicle accident, where Carmel Miles was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Brian Miles. The consent order involved the allocation of the settlement funds among the parties, with certain amounts designated for Carmel Miles, Brian Miles, and Suncorp Insurance & Finance.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the consent order was fair and equitable and whether the Court had the jurisdiction to review and potentially modify the order. The appellants argued that the consent order was not properly documented and that the Court should consider evidence that was not before the Supreme Court. They contended that the order did not adequately account for their respective contributions and entitlements.

The Court of Appeal found that the consent order was validly made and properly documented. The Court held that there was no evidence to suggest that the order was not fair and equitable. The Court also determined that it had jurisdiction to review the order but did not find it necessary to modify it. The appeal was dismissed, and the costs of the appeal were reserved pending further consideration by the Court.

No specific final orders were made in the summary provided, but the appeal was dismissed, and costs were reserved for further consideration.

Orders