Murphy v Turner-Jones - [2022] QCA 256

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Murphy v Turner-Jones & Anor [2022] QCA 256

PARTIES:

BRETT LESLIE MURPHY
(appellant)
v
LEAH TURNER-JONES
(first respondent)
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
ACN 000 122 850
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 4815 of 2022
SC No 1093 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton – [2022] QSC 40 (Crow J)

DELIVERED ON:

13 December 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 September 2022

JUDGES:

Morrison and Dalton JJA and Bradley J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – PERSONAL INJURY – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT GENERALLY – where the appellant suffered physical injuries in a motor vehicle accident – where liability is admitted by the respondents – where the appellant claims damages for personal injuries arising from the motor vehicle accident – where damages are assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – where the appellant seeks significantly increased damages – where the appellant asks for orders that he recover the pecuniary losses and general damages he claimed – where the claimed amounts for special damages and general damages total over $10 million – where the appellant seeks compensation for past lost earnings based on his gross earnings – whether the appellant should be granted such orders and is entitled to increased damages

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 11, s 12
Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 7, s 8, s 11, s 12, Schedule 3 – s 2, s 5, s 8, s 9, s 10, Schedule 4 – Items 86, 87, 88, 89,90, 91& 92
Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 34, s 41(2), s 42, s 51
Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2010 (Qld), s 9

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
G W Diehm KC, with A M Arnold, for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the respondents

MORRISON JA: I agree with his Honour Bradley J.
DALTON JA: I agree with the order proposed by Bradley J and with his reasons.
BRADLEY J: The appellant Mr Murphy was injured in a motor vehicle accident in a slip lane on East Street, Rockhampton in September 2017. A car collided with the rear of the taxi he was driving. It was driven by the first respondent (the driver). The second respondent (the insurer) is the compulsory third party insurer of the driver.
The insurer admitted liability in full for Mr Murphy’s injuries. This happened more than two years before Mr Murphy sued the driver and the insurer in this court. The court was required to determine the damages payable to him by the insurer for the injuries he had suffered because of the accident.
Mr Murphy’s claim was tried before the learned primary judge over three days from 28 February to 2 March 2022. The court published reasons for the decision on 31…

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.

Continue reading Murphy v Turner-Jones

Details

AGLC: Murphy v Turner-Jones [2022] QCA 256
Case: [2022] QCA 256
Decision Date: 13 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Murphy v Turner-Jones concerns the assessment of damages for personal injury sustained by Mr Murphy in a motor vehicle accident. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the appellant was entitled to increased damages and whether the primary judge correctly assessed the damages under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). The appellant, Mr Murphy, sought significantly increased damages, particularly for past lost earnings based on his gross earnings, which were claimed to total over $10 million.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included whether the primary judge correctly interpreted and applied relevant statutory provisions and common law principles in assessing damages. The court also had to consider whether the primary judge made any errors in excluding certain claims related to the failure to report the accident, vehicle registration issues, and alleged breaches by the insurer of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). Additionally, the court examined whether the primary judge appropriately assessed Mr Murphy's claims for the cost of consultations with medical specialists and pharmaceutical expenses.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in not addressing certain issues raised by Mr Murphy, as they were not relevant to the determination of the extent of injuries and the damages to which Mr Murphy was entitled. Regarding the statutory provisions and common law principles, the court determined that the primary judge did not misinterpret or misapply any relevant laws in assessing the damages. The court also concluded that the insurer's failure to pay certain costs sooner did not entitle Mr Murphy to additional damages. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

In summary, the Queensland Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's assessment of damages and dismissed Mr Murphy's appeal with costs. The court found no error in the primary judge's approach to the statutory provisions, common law principles, or the assessment of the appellant's claims for medical and pharmaceutical expenses.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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

The insurer declined to pay for Mr Murphy’s consultations with medical specialists in February and April 2020, on the ground that they were not reasonable costs of rehabilitation. The insurer paid for an appointment with a specialist in July 2020. Mr Murphy says the insurer did not provide any financial assistance for pharmaceutical costs.Conclusions on Ground 1 In his statement of claim, Mr Murphy did not allege that he suffered any loss or damage because the driver did not report the accident within 24 hours, because the vehicle was ineligible for registration, or due to any conduct of the insurer in breach of the MAIA. Mr Murphy made no allegation that the driver failed to report the accident to the police. He did allege that the bull-bar did not comply with AS4876.1. He did not allege that the driver’s vehicle was ineligible for registration for that reason, or for any other reason. He did not allege that the insurer breached any of the nominated sections of the MAIA, or any other provision of that Act. The driver and insurer had admitted liability for the appellant’s injuries caused by the accident. The matters to be decided at the trial were the extent of injuries caused by the accident and the damages to which Mr Murphy was entitled for those injuries. The first three issues raised by the appellant in ground 1 were not relevant to the determination of those matters. It was not necessary for the primary judge to decide any of them. By not deciding them, the primary judge made no legal error. As to the fourth issue, the primary judge heard evidence and submissions on the appellant’s claims for the cost of consultations with medical specialists and pharmaceutical costs. The primary judge included in the appellant’s damages the amounts for the appellant’s past medical expenses and pharmaceutical expenses for which the primary judge found the defendants were liable. His Honour included interest on these past expenses in the damages awarded. The insurer’s failure to pay these costs sooner gives rise to no later loss or damage.Ground 2 The second ground of appeal is that the primary judge misinterpreted and misapplied certain statutory provisions, the “common law rules and principles of causation”, the “common law relating to whiplash injuries and high energy trauma”, and a guideline by the American Medical Association.Statutory provisions The statutory provisions raised by Mr Murphy are sections 11 and 12 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (CLA) and sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12 of the Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld) (CLR) and Items 86, 87, 90, 91 and 92 in Schedule 4 of the CLR. The primary judge made no reference to these sections of the CLA or the CLR. The CLA provisions deal with general principles, including factual causation, the scope of liability, and the onus of proof. Save for the general assertion of error, Mr Murphy makes no criticism of his Honour’s approach to these matters. No error, misinterpretation, or misapplication is apparent in the reasons.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

In 2014, the MAIA was amended to its present form. Before amendment, a person involved in an accident was obliged to report it to the police if there was property damage (excluding the person’s own vehicle) exceeding $2,500. Mr Murphy says the court can ignore Parliament’s decision to amend the Act because the amendment deleting this obligation was “enacted on the basis of a mistaken belief” by the then Minister for Transport. There is no proper basis for the court to do so.Registration of the vehicle The second matter is whether the driver’s vehicle was eligible for registration under s 9 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2010 (Qld). Mr Murphy says the VFPS (or “bull-bar”) fitted to the driver’s vehicle did not comply with certain sections of AS4876.1. He says: it did not have the label or marking required by section 1.4.2; the anchorages used were not designed specifically for the bull-bar, in breach of section 1.5; and the bull-bar was wider than the vehicle, in breach of section 2.3.Insurer’s compliance with the MAIA The third and fourth matters are whether the insurer breached sections 41(2), 42 and 51 of the MAIA. By s 41(2) an insurer is required to make a fair and reasonable estimate of damages to which a claimant would be entitled in an action against the insurer, and to make a written offer of settlement as soon as practicable after the insurer receives notice of a claim. Section 42 applies once liability has been admitted. It requires an insurer to make payments to or for a claimant for private hospital, medical and pharmaceutical expenses reasonably and appropriately incurred because of the injury. Section 51 requires an insured to make rehabilitation services available to a claimant on the insurer’s initiative or at the claimant’s request. Mr Murphy’s solicitors gave the insurer notice of his claim in October 2017. The insurer accepted liability in November 2017. Mr Murphy had surgery on the nerves in his spine in September 2018. The insurer paid for the cost of the surgery and the hospital expenses. It also paid or reimbursed the cost of some physiotherapy. Mr Murphy and the insurer engaged in settlement negotiations from December 2019 to July 2020. It seems Mr Murphy ended these negotiations when the insurer sought disclosure of his physiotherapy records. The insurer declined to pay for Mr Murphy’s consultations with medical specialists in February and April 2020, on the ground that they were not reasonable costs of rehabilitation. The insurer paid for an appointment with a specialist in July 2020. Mr Murphy says the insurer did not provide any financial assistance for pharmaceutical costs.Conclusions on Ground 1 In his statement of claim, Mr Murphy did not allege that he suffered any loss or damage because the driver did not report the accident within 24 hours, because the vehicle was ineligible for registration, or due to any conduct of the insurer in breach of the MAIA.

CITATION:	*Murphy v Turner-Jones & Anor* [2022] QCA 256
PARTIES:	BRETT LESLIE MURPHY (appellant) v LEAH TURNER-JONES (first respondent) ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 000 122 850 (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 4815 of 2022 SC No 1093 of 2020
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton – [2022] QSC 40 (Crow J)
DELIVERED ON:	13 December 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 September 2022
JUDGES:	Morrison and Dalton JJA and Bradley J
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – PERSONAL INJURY – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT GENERALLY – where the appellant suffered physical injuries in a motor vehicle accident – where liability is admitted by the respondents – where the appellant claims damages for personal injuries arising from the motor vehicle accident – where damages are assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – where the appellant seeks significantly increased damages – where the appellant asks for orders that he recover the pecuniary losses and general damages he claimed – where the claimed amounts for special damages and general damages total over $10 million – where the appellant seeks compensation for past lost earnings based on his gross earnings – whether the appellant should be granted such orders and is entitled to increased damages Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 11, s 12 Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 7, s 8, s 11, s 12, Schedule 3 – s 2, s 5, s 8, s 9, s 10, Schedule 4 – Items 86, 87, 88, 89,90, 91& 92 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 34, s 41(2), s 42, s 51 Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2010 (Qld), s 9
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf G W Diehm KC, with A M Arnold, for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the respondents