Murray v GBR Helicopters - [2019] QDC 158

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Murray v GBR Helicopters & Ors [2019] QDC 158

PARTIES:

JOHN GEOFFREY MURRAY

(Plaintiff)

v

GBR HELICOPTERS PTY LTD (ACN 143 159 531)
(Defendant)

and

ERGON ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED
(ACN 087 646 062)

(First Third Party)

and

STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(Second Third Party)

FILE NO/S:

92/19 and 93/19

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

23 August 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

1 March 2019

JUDGE:

Morzone QC DCJ

ORDER:

Application filed on 12 December 2018 is dismissed.1.

Unless either party applies for, or the parties otherwise agree on, a different costs order, within 14 days of this order, the second third party will pay the first third party’s costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis.2.

CATCHWORDS:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – APPLICATION – THIRD PARTY PROCEEDING – Application to strike out second third party proceeding – plaintiff sued defendant carrier for personal injuries pursuant to Civil Aviation (Carrier’s Liability) Act 1964 (Qld), and/or Civil Aviation (Carrier’s Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) – no notice of claim against employer or proceeding against employer – defendant issues third party proceeding against electricity authority - plaintiff’s proceeding settled – second third party proceeding issued against employer for economic loss from first third party claim – whether second third party/employer is “tortfeasor who … would if sued have been liable in respect of the same damage” – whether “co-ordinate liabilities” or “same liability” or a “common obligation” to found second third party claim - whether as a matter of law the cause of action for relief pursuant to the Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld).

Legislation
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 171, 192.
Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld), s 6c.
Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability Act) 1965 (Qld), s28.
Workers’ Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), ss. 295, 275, Part 5 Chapter 5.
Work Cover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), ss.253, 262, 302.
Cases
Bonser v Melanacic & Anor [2000] QCA 12
Co-ownership Land Development Pty Ltd v Queensland Estates Pty Ltd (1973) 1 ALR 201
Dyson v A-G [1911] 1 KB 410.
Hawthorne v Theiss Contractors Pty Ltd & Anor (2002) 2 Qd R 157
HIH Claims Support Limited v Insurance Australia Limited [2011] HCA 31
Hong Kong Bank of Australia v Larobi (1991) 23 NSWLR 593
Mahoney v McManus (1981) 180 CLR 370
South West Helicopters Pty Ltd v Stephenson [2017] NSWCA 312
Tanks v WorkCover Queensland [2001] QCA 103

COUNSEL:

J. Trevino for the First Third Party

S. Williams QC for the Second Third Party

SOLICITORS:

Miller Bou-Samra Lawyers for the First Third Party

Crown Law for the Second Third Party

The applicant second third party (State) applies to strike out the third party proceeding commenced by the first third party (Ergon) on the grounds that the latter proceeding is unmaintainable in the plaintiff’s proceeding.

I have considered all the material, detailed written outlines of argument, and further oral and written submissions. For…

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 Murray v GBR Helicopters

Details

AGLC: Murray v GbR Helicopters [2019] QDC 158
Case: [2019] QDC 158
Decision Date: 23 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Murray v GBR Helicopters, the plaintiff brought a claim against the defendant, GBR Helicopters, for personal injuries sustained pursuant to the Civil Aviation (Carrier’s Liability) Act 1964 (Qld), and/or the Civil Aviation (Carrier’s Liability) Act 1959 (Cth). The defendant issued a third party proceeding against the electricity authority, but the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant was settled before the third party proceeding was heard. Subsequently, the defendant issued a second third party proceeding against the employer for economic loss arising from the initial third party claim. The plaintiff sought to strike out the second third party proceeding, arguing that the employer was not a tortfeasor who would have been liable for the same damages if sued, and that the second third party proceeding did not establish co-ordinate liabilities, a common obligation, or a cause of action under the Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld).

The court considered whether the employer could be considered a tortfeasor who would have been liable for the same damages if sued, whether the second third party proceeding established co-ordinate liabilities, a common obligation, or a cause of action under the Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld). The court determined that the employer was not a tortfeasor who would have been liable for the same damages if sued, and that the second third party proceeding did not establish co-ordinate liabilities, a common obligation, or a cause of action under the Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld). The court found that the second third party proceeding was an attempt to relitigate the same issues that had already been settled, and that the second third party proceeding was an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s application to strike out the second third party proceeding. The court ordered that unless either party applied for, or the parties otherwise agreed on, a different costs order, within 14 days of this order, the second third party would pay the first third party’s costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis. The court held that the second third party proceeding was an abuse of process and that the plaintiff’s application to strike out the proceeding was successful. The court further ordered that the second third party would pay the first third party’s costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application filed on 12 December 2018 is dismissed.1.

Unless either party applies for, or the parties otherwise agree on, a different costs order, within 14 days of this order, the second third party will pay the first third party’s costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis.2.

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.

CITATION:	Murray v GBR Helicopters & Ors [2019] QDC 158
PARTIES:	JOHN GEOFFREY MURRAY (Plaintiff) v GBR HELICOPTERS PTY LTD (ACN 143 159 531) (Defendant) and ERGON ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED (ACN 087 646 062) (First Third Party) and STATE OF QUEENSLAND (Second Third Party)
FILE NO/S:	92/19 and 93/19
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	23 August 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	1 March 2019
JUDGE:	Morzone QC DCJ
ORDER:	Application filed on 12 December 2018 is dismissed.1. Unless either party applies for, or the parties otherwise agree on, a different costs order, within 14 days of this order, the second third party will pay the first third party’s costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis.2.
CATCHWORDS:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – APPLICATION – THIRD PARTY PROCEEDING – Application to strike out second third party proceeding – plaintiff sued defendant carrier for personal injuries pursuant to Civil Aviation (Carrier’s Liability) Act 1964 (Qld), and/or Civil Aviation (Carrier’s Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) – no notice of claim against employer or proceeding against employer – defendant issues third party proceeding against electricity authority - plaintiff’s proceeding settled – second third party proceeding issued against employer for economic loss from first third party claim – whether second third party/employer is “tortfeasor who … would if sued have been liable in respect of the same damage” – whether “co-ordinate liabilities” or “same liability” or a “common obligation” to found second third party claim - whether as a matter of law the cause of action for relief pursuant to the Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld). Legislation Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 171, 192. Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld), s 6c. Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability Act) 1965 (Qld), s28. Workers’ Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), ss. 295, 275, Part 5 Chapter 5. Work Cover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), ss.253, 262, 302. Cases Bonser v Melanacic & Anor [2000] QCA 12 Co-ownership Land Development Pty Ltd v Queensland Estates Pty Ltd (1973) 1 ALR 201 Dyson v A-G [1911] 1 KB 410. Hawthorne v Theiss Contractors Pty Ltd & Anor (2002) 2 Qd R 157 HIH Claims Support Limited v Insurance Australia Limited [2011] HCA 31 Hong Kong Bank of Australia v Larobi (1991) 23 NSWLR 593 Mahoney v McManus (1981) 180 CLR 370 South West Helicopters Pty Ltd v Stephenson [2017] NSWCA 312 Tanks v WorkCover Queensland [2001] QCA 103
COUNSEL:	J. Trevino for the First Third Party S. Williams QC for the Second Third Party
SOLICITORS:	Miller Bou-Samra Lawyers for the First Third Party Crown Law for the Second Third Party