Nominal Defendant v Duntroon Holdings P/L - [2008] QCA 183

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Nominal Defendant v Duntroon Holdings P/L [2008] QCA 183

PARTIES:

NOMINAL DEFENDANT
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
DUNTROON HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 010 334 335
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11518 of 2007
SC No 1020 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 July 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2008

JUDGES:

Keane and Holmes JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Keane JA and Philippides J concurring as to the orders made, Holmes JA dissenting

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed1.

Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis2.

CATCHWORDS:

INSURANCE – THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE – MOTOR VEHICLES – COMPULSORY INSURANCE LEGISLATION – UNINSURED VEHICLES – QUEENSLAND – where an employee of the appellant was injured in an accident involving a mobile crane owned by the appellant – where the crane was not registered – where the respondent settled the action brought by the employee – whether the injury of the employee was one to which the statutory compensation scheme applies – whether the respondent was the proper defendant in the action brought by the employee – whether the appellant is liable to reimburse the respondent in respect of expenses incurred by it in settling the action

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 5, s 12, s 13A, s 20, s 23, s 31(1)(c), s 60
Transport Infrastructure (Roads) Regulation 1991 (Qld), s 12

Evans v Transit Australia Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 30; [2000] QCA 512, applied
Gideona v Nominal Defendant [2006] 1 Qd R 31; [2005] QCA 261, considered
Townsville Trade Waste Pty Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Company of Australia Limited [2000] 2 Qd R 682; [1999] QCA 386, considered

COUNSEL:

P J Dunning SC, with G D Beacham, for the appellant
W Sofronoff QC SG, with N H Ferrett, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Damien Bourke & Associates for the appellant
Cooper Grace Ward for the respondent

KEANE JA: The appellant, Duntroon Holdings Pty Ltd, carried on a steel fabrication business at Brendale. The business was located upon two pieces of private land separated by a public road. On 14 June 2000, one of the appellant's employees, Mr James, suffered personal injuries when his leg was crushed by the front right-hand wheel of a mobile crane being driven by another of its employees across the road from one of the appellant's plots of land onto the other. The point of impact between the vehicle and Mr James was inside the boundary line of the appellant's property; but the rear wheels of the crane were still on the road as it moved forward. It is common ground that the injury was suffered in consequence of the negligent operation of the mobile crane.

Mr James brought an action at common law for damages for personal injuries against the appellant.…

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 Nominal Defendant v Duntroon Holdings P/L

Details

AGLC: Nominal Defendant v Duntroon Holdings P/L [2008] QCA 183
Case: [2008] QCA 183
Decision Date: 11 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nominal Defendant, an appellant, brought an appeal against the respondent, Duntroon Holdings P/L, in relation to an incident involving an employee injured in an accident with a mobile crane owned by the appellant. The employee initiated a personal injury claim against the respondent, which subsequently settled the claim. The appellant argued that the statutory compensation scheme applies to the employee's injury, rendering the respondent the appropriate defendant in the action, and that the appellant should reimburse the respondent for the expenses incurred in settling the claim.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether the injury suffered by the employee fell within the purview of the statutory compensation scheme. Secondly, whether the respondent was the correct defendant in the action brought by the employee. Lastly, whether the appellant is liable to reimburse the respondent for the expenses incurred in settling the action.

The court found that the statutory compensation scheme does not apply to the employee's injury as the mobile crane involved in the accident was not registered. Consequently, the respondent was not the appropriate defendant in the action brought by the employee. The court held that the appellant is not liable to reimburse the respondent for the expenses incurred in settling the action. The appeal was dismissed, with the appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed1.

Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal 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.

CITATION:	Nominal Defendant v Duntroon Holdings P/L [2008] QCA 183
PARTIES:	NOMINAL DEFENDANT (plaintiff/respondent) v DUNTROON HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 010 334 335 (defendant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 11518 of 2007 SC No 1020 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11 July 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 May 2008
JUDGES:	Keane and Holmes JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Keane JA and Philippides J concurring as to the orders made, Holmes JA dissenting
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed1. Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis2.
CATCHWORDS:	INSURANCE – THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE – MOTOR VEHICLES – COMPULSORY INSURANCE LEGISLATION – UNINSURED VEHICLES – QUEENSLAND – where an employee of the appellant was injured in an accident involving a mobile crane owned by the appellant – where the crane was not registered – where the respondent settled the action brought by the employee – whether the injury of the employee was one to which the statutory compensation scheme applies – whether the respondent was the proper defendant in the action brought by the employee – whether the appellant is liable to reimburse the respondent in respect of expenses incurred by it in settling the action Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 5, s 12, s 13A, s 20, s 23, s 31(1)(c), s 60 Transport Infrastructure (Roads) Regulation 1991 (Qld), s 12 Evans v Transit Australia Pty Ltd [2002] 2 Qd R 30; [2000] QCA 512, applied Gideona v Nominal Defendant [2006] 1 Qd R 31; [2005] QCA 261, considered Townsville Trade Waste Pty Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Company of Australia Limited [2000] 2 Qd R 682; [1999] QCA 386, considered
COUNSEL:	P J Dunning SC, with G D Beacham, for the appellant W Sofronoff QC SG, with N H Ferrett, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Damien Bourke & Associates for the appellant Cooper Grace Ward for the respondent