Morrison v Hudson

Case [2006] QCA 170

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Morrison v Hudson & Anor [2006] QCA 170

PARTIES:

SCOTT ANDREW MORRISON
(plaintiff/applicant)
v
JAMEY WAATA HUDSON
(first defendant/first respondent)
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
ACN 000 122 850
(second defendant/second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 2087 of 2006
SC No 319 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time/General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

26 May 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 May 2006

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application for an extension of time refused1.   

Applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the application to this Court to be assessed on the standard basis2.   

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE - COSTS - APPEALS AS TO COSTS - JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN - where applicant was plaintiff in action for damages for personal injuries suffered in motor vehicle accident - where learned primary judge gave judgment for the plaintiff against the respondents - where plaintiff thereafter applied for an order for costs on indemnity basis on the Supreme Court scale - where learned primary judge ordered respondents to pay applicant's costs of and incidental to the action to be assessed, limited to costs which would have been recoverable if the action had been instituted in the District Court - where applicant applied to learned primary judge for leave to appeal decision on costs but had not filed notice of appeal within the time limit in r 748 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) - where learned primary judge adjourned the application for leave to appeal against costs to enable applicant to seek from this Court an extension of time to appeal - whether the application to extend time should be granted

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 51C
Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 253, s 244(9)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 748

Bradshaw v Unity Marine Corporation Inc 147 F Supp 2d 668 (SD Tex 2001), cited
Castro v Hillery [2003] 1 Qd R 651; [2002] QCA 359, cited
Di Carlo v Dubois& Ors [2004] QSC 041; SC No 1281 of 1996, 10 March 2004, considered
Emanuel Management Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) & Ors v Foster's Brewing Group Ltd & Ors and Coopers & Lybrand & Ors [2003] QSC 484; SC 3723 of 1999, 17 December 2003, considered
Grundmann v Georgeson (1996) Aust Torts Reports 81-396; [1996] QCA 189, cited
Johns v Johns [1988] 1 Qd R 138, cited
Kenny & Anor v Eyears & Anor [2004] QSC 59; SC No 9344 of 2002, 19 March 2004, considered
McCasker v Darling Downs Co-Operative Bacon Association Ltd, [1988] QSC 282; SC No 2260 of 1985, 27 July 1988, cited
Monement v Faux& Anor [2005] QSC 342; No 1743 of 2005, 22 November 2005, considered

COUNSEL:

K C Fleming QC for the applicant

Continue reading Morrison v Hudson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Morrison v Hudson [2006] QCA 170
Case
[2006] QCA 170
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Morrison v Hudson involved the plaintiff, Morrison, who had sued Hudson for damages related to personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff was awarded damages by the primary judge, but subsequently sought an order for costs on an indemnity basis on the Supreme Court scale. The primary judge ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff’s costs limited to what would have been recoverable if the action had been instituted in the District Court. Dissatisfied with this decision, Morrison applied for leave to appeal against the costs decision but did not file the notice of appeal within the stipulated time limit under rule 748 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). Morrison then applied to the primary judge for an extension of time to appeal, which was adjourned pending the outcome of Morrison's application to this Court for an extension of time.

The court was required to determine whether the application for an extension of time should be granted, considering the statutory provisions and relevant case law. The court had to balance the principle of finality in litigation against the need to ensure justice in individual cases. The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) prescribe strict time limits for appeals, which are generally not extendable except in exceptional circumstances. The court also had to consider the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) and the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), which impose specific rules on costs in personal injury actions.

The court held that the application for an extension of time should be refused. The court emphasised that strict adherence to time limits is necessary to maintain the efficiency and finality of litigation. The court noted that while the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) and the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) provide for certain rights and remedies, they do not override the clear provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The court found no exceptional circumstances that would warrant an extension of time and thus denied the application. The court also ordered that Morrison pay Hudson's costs of the application to this Court to be assessed on the standard basis.

This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and time limits in litigation. The court's refusal to grant an extension of time highlights the need for parties to diligently manage their legal proceedings and comply with procedural requirements. The outcome also reinforces the principle that extensions of time are not lightly granted, particularly in cases involving personal injury claims governed by specific legislative frameworks.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for an extension of time refused1.

Applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the application to this Court to be assessed on the standard basis2.

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.