Noakes v Beveridge - [2014] ACTSC 177

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Noakes v Beveridge
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 177
Hearing Date(s):	2 June 2014
DecisionDate:	29 July 2014
Before:	Mossop M
Decision:	See [40]
Category:	Interlocutory application
Catchwords:	PERSONAL INJURY – motor vehicle accident – compulsory conference - medical reports – whether medical reports served after compulsory conference can be relied upon
Legislation Cited:	Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT) ss 139, 156 Road Transport (Third Party Insurance) Amendment Bill 2011
Cases Cited:	Best v Bardsley [2013] ACTSC 141 Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville (1988) 164 CLR 234 Macintosh v Hikechukwu [2011] ACTSC 131 Singh v Rodden [2013] ACTSC 272
Parties:	Geoffrey Noakes ( Plaintiff) Colin Beveridge ( First Defendant) QBE Insurance Australia Ltd ( Second Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr F Tuscano ( Plaintiff) Mr A Muller ( First and Second Defendants)
Solicitors: Ken Cush & Associates ( Plaintiff) Moray & Agnew ( First and Second Defendants)
File Number(s):	SC 497 of 2013

Introduction

These proceedings relate to a motor vehicle accident. The proceedings are regulated by the terms of the Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT). The accident the subject of the proceedings occurred on 12 September 2011. On 16 October 2013 the plaintiff served his certificate of readiness under s 139 of the Act. The compulsory conference occurred on 23 October 2013.

The certificate of readiness was signed by the plaintiff’s solicitor and certified, relevantly:

1. We are ready for the compulsory conference.
…
3. We have obtained medical and other expert reports from each person the claimant proposes to call as a witness at the trial;…

Proceedings were commenced on 17 December 2013. On 16 April 2014 the plaintiff served reports of Dr Le Leu, an occupational physician, dated 9 April 2014 and Dr Jungfer, a psychiatrist, dated 24 February 2014. Those reports had not previously been served nor had other reports from those doctors been served.

On 17 April 2014 the proceedings came before the Deputy Registrar of the Court. The defendant indicated its objection to the plaintiff relying upon the reports served on 16 April 2014 on the basis that they had been obtained after the signing of the certificate of readiness which stated that the plaintiff had obtained medical and other expert reports from each person the claimant proposed to call as a witness at the trial.

Precisely what occurred before the Deputy Registrar is not clear. The bench sheet records:

Plaintiff required leave of court to rely on evidence (medical reports) only served on the defendants on 16 April 2014. Plaintiff may wish to file an application.
1. Direction: if plaintiff intends to rely on medical evidence served on defendants on 16 April 2014, then that application is to be filed and served by 1 May 2014.
2. Matter to be adjourned for call over before registrar on 6 May 2014 at 9:30 am.

That direction having been made, the plaintiff has applied for leave to rely upon those reports. By application in…

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 Noakes v Beveridge

Details

AGLC: Noakes v Beveridge [2014] ACTSC 177
Case: [2014] ACTSC 177
Decision Date: 29 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Noakes v Beveridge, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant seeking damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The primary dispute centred on the admissibility of medical reports that were served after the compulsory conference. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff argued that the medical reports, which were prepared post-conference, should be admissible as they provided relevant and updated information regarding the plaintiff's injuries and prognosis. The defendant contended that the reports should be excluded as they were not served within the stipulated timeframe set out by the court rules.

The court was required to determine whether medical reports that are served after the compulsory conference can be relied upon in proceedings. The legal issue involved interpreting the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules 2014 (Qld) and whether the court should exercise its discretion to admit the late-served medical reports. The court considered the principles of fairness, the purpose of the compulsory conference, and the potential prejudice to the defendant if the reports were admitted.

The court found that the late-served medical reports could be admitted, despite the breach of the procedural requirement. The court reasoned that the principle of fairness required consideration of the circumstances surrounding the late service. The court noted that the defendant had not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the late service and that the reports contained critical information necessary for the resolution of the case. The court exercised its discretion under rule 277 of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules 2014 (Qld) to admit the reports, highlighting the importance of ensuring that justice is served in individual cases.

The final order of the court was that the late-served medical reports would be admitted as evidence in the proceedings. The case underscores the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when determining the admissibility of late-served documents and the discretion available to the court under the relevant procedural rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [40]

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.