Parker v Ford

[2011] QDC 163

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Parker v Ford & Anor [2011] QDC 163

PARTIES:

SCOTT LINDSAY PARKER
Applicant

V

AMANDA EDITH  FORD
First respondent

And

RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED
Second respondent

FILE NO/S:

2903 of 2011

DIVISION:

Civil jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application by claimant that compulsory conference be ordered

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

 15 August 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 August 2011

JUDGE:

Robin QC DCJ

ORDER:

Holding of compulsory conference ordered

CATCHWORDS:

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s 51A(5)

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 s 68, s 85

Compulsory conference ordered to be held at claimant’s instance - whether District Court had jurisdiction, where claimant gratuitously provided a “statement of loss and damage” describing claims aggregating more than the monetary limit, but his solicitors subsequently provided an affidavit.

COUNSEL:

D. C. Rangiah SC for applicant

S. J. Williams for second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Turner Freeman Lawyers for applicant

Quinlan Miller & Treston for second respondent

1. The application is one made under s 51A(5) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 seeking that the court order the compulsory conference to take place, alternatively dispensation from the requirement to hold the compulsory conference which is a step required to be taken before the applicant is entitled to commence a claim in the court in respect of personal injuries suffered by him in consequence of a motor vehicle accident on 25 November 2009.  The application is against the second respondent, which is the compulsory third party insurer of the first respondent, who is asserted to have unexpectedly executed a U-turn while driving her vehicle in the path of the plaintiff’s vehicle, causing a collision.  On 7 June 2010 the second respondent admitted liability.

1. The second respondent has only recently engaged outside solicitors, being Mr Beirne’s firm.  The applicant has been represented by Mr Black’s firm.  They have been pressing for a compulsory conference for some time and, essentially, have been ignored.  In the early part of 2010, a report and subsequent notes of the applicant’s orthopaedic surgeon, associate professor Day were supplied to the second respondent.  Their medical information was completed by provision of medico-legal reports of neurosurgeon Dr Scott Campbell, clinical psychologist, Peter Stoker and occupational therapist, Lesley Stephenson.  Their reports were sent to the second respondent under cover of letters of 5 November 2010, 12 November 2010 and 6 December 2010.  The covering letters take a pretty standard form, all plainly foreshadowing interest in the second respondent’s entitlement to have the applicant independently examined, which was sought to be attended to expeditiously, if desired, so that the compulsory conference could be held.

1. The letter invited the second respondent (which relevantly has control of the first respondent’s interests) to indicate what requirements it had for medical examination of Mr Parker in accordance with the entitlements recognized in ss 46 and 46A.  The second respondent still having “in house” representation, Mr Black, the applicant’s solicitor in sending the neuro-surgeon’s  report on 5 November 2010 asked for the second respondent’s  “panel within…