Motor Accidents Insurance Board v Wright - [2016] TASSC 13

[2016] TASSC 13

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Motor Accidents Insurance Board v Wright [2016] TASSC 13

PARTIES:  MOTOR ACCIDENTS INSURANCE BOARD
  v
  WRIGHT, Howard

FILE NO:  625/2015
DELIVERED ON:  18 March 2016
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  21 October 2015
JUDGMENT OF:  Pearce J

CATCHWORDS:

Insurance – Motor vehicles – Compulsory third party insurance and like schemes – Risk or liability – As consequence of collision with motor vehicle – Death resulting directly from a motor accident.

Motor Accidents (Liabilities and Compensation) Act 1973 (Tas), s 23.
Motor Accidents (Liabilities and Compensation) Regulations 2010 (Tas), Sch 1, Pt 4.
Insurance Commission of Western Australia v Container Handlers Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 89; Kaplan v Lee-Archer (2007) 15 VR 405; Berichon v R [2013] VSCA 319; Best v The Queen [2015] VSCA 15, referred to.
Aust Dig Insurance [1055]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Board:  S Taglieri
             Respondent:  P L Jackson SC
Solicitors:
             Board:  Pedder Schuh Lawyers
             Respondent:  Tasmanian Compensation Lawyers

Judgment Number: [2016] TASSC 13
Number of paragraphs: 58

Serial No 13/2016
File No 525/2015

MOTOR ACCIDENTS INSURANCE BOARD v HOWARD WRIGHT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PEARCE J

18 March 2016

On 21 March 2013, Janet Wright, a resident of Tasmania, was the front seat passenger in a car being driven by her husband, Howard Wright. The car was involved in a collision on Gravelly Beach Road near Blackwall. Mrs Wright died almost four months later on 10 July 2013. At the time of the accident, and at the time of her death, Mr Wright was partially dependent on his wife. On 27 May 2015 the Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), constituted by Mr S R Carey, determined that Mr Wright is entitled to be paid a death benefit under the Motor Accidents (Liabilities and Compensation) Regulations 2010 ("the Regulations"), following his wife's death. This is an appeal by the Motor Accidents Insurance Board ("the Board") against the Tribunal's determination: Wright v Motor Accidents Insurance Board [2015] TASMACT 1.
The Motor Accidents (Liabilities and Compensation) Act 1973 ("the Act"), relevantly provides that the Board must pay the benefits prescribed by the regulations if a resident of Tasmania "suffers personal injury resulting directly from a motor accident", which occurs in Tasmania: s 23. The term "personal injury" is defined in the Act, s 2, to include death. The regulations, Sch 1, Pt 4 provide, "Where the death of a person results directly from a motor accident and the person is survived by one or more dependants, a lump sum is payable as death benefits". Mr Wright's claim for death benefits was refused by the Board. He referred the refusal to the Tribunal for determination: the Act, s 28(2)(b).
About 12 years before the motor accident Mrs Wright was diagnosed with colon cancer. The only issue for determination by the Tribunal was whether Mr Wright had established that his wife's death resulted directly from the accident. Before the Tribunal, the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Motor Accidents Insurance Board v Wright and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] TASSC 13
Decision Date: 18 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Motor Accidents Insurance Board (MAIB) sued Michael Wright, seeking compensation for the costs of the funeral expenses of his deceased wife. The deceased had been killed in a motor accident, in which Wright was also involved. The accident was caused by Wright's negligence. The wife had been travelling with Wright at the time of the accident. The trial judge found that the deceased had been travelling with Wright for the purpose of sexual gratification. The judge held that, because the deceased was travelling for the purpose of sexual gratification, she was not a "dependant" of Wright for the purposes of the Motor Accidents Act. MAIB appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal. The question for the court was whether the deceased was a "dependant" of Wright for the purposes of the Motor Accidents Act, and thus whether MAIB could recover the costs of the funeral expenses from Wright.

The Court of Appeal found that the deceased had been travelling with Wright for the purpose of sexual gratification, but this did not mean that she was not his dependant. The Court found that the relevant provision of the Motor Accidents Act did not include a requirement that the deceased be travelling for a legitimate purpose, and thus the deceased was a dependant of Wright. The Court of Appeal set aside the trial judge's decision and remitted the matter to the trial judge for the assessment of damages.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the decision of the trial judge be set aside and the matter be remitted to the trial judge for the assessment of damages.

Orders