Patterson v The Baptist Union of Queensland - [2006] QDC 166

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Patterson v The Baptist Union of Queensland & Anor [2006] QDC 166

PARTIES:

KAY ANNETTE PATTERSON (Plaintiff)

V

THE BAPTIST UNION OF QUEENSLAND (First Defendant)

&

TIM HANNA (as representative of himself and all members of the Gateway Baptist Church as at 30 October 1999) (Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D4391 of 2003

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

19 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 April 2005

JUDGE:

Tutt DCJ

ORDER:

1. The plaintiff’s claim is struck out.

2. The plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to this application to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis under the District Court scale.

CATCHWORDS:

Application to strike out claim and statement of claim or alternatively that judgment be entered for the defendants – where plaintiff granted leave to proceed with claim pursuant to s18(1)(c)(ii) of Personal Injury Proceedings Act 2002 – where Court of Appeal decision set District Court order aside – whether s 77DA has retrospective effect to reverse the Court of Appeal decision – whether complying notice of claim.

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 s 14B.

Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2004.

Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004

Personal Injury Proceedings Act 2002 ss 18, 20, 77A, 77D and 77DA.

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr 171 and 293.

Macintosh v Lobel (1993) 30 NSWLR 441.

Maxwell v Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 261.

Patterson v Baptist Union of Queensland & Anor [2004] QCA 146.

Production Spray Painting & Panel Beating Pty Ltd v Newnham (No 2) (1991) 27 NSWLR 659.

Re Macks; ex parte Saint (2000) 204 CLR 158.

The Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Cavanough (1935) 53 CLR 220.

COUNSEL:

Mr K F Holyoake for the plaintiff.

Mr K N Wilson SC for the defendant.

SOLICITORS:

Sciaccas Lawyers for the plaintiff.

HBM Lawyers for the defendant.

Introduction

This is an application by the first and second defendants (“the defendants”) seeking a primary order under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (“UCPR”) rr 171 or 293 respectively that the plaintiff’s (“the plaintiff”) claim and statement of claim be struck out or judgment be entered for the defendants against the plaintiff for the whole of the plaintiff’s claim.

The proceeding between the parties has a lengthy history and has been the subject of applications before this court and on appeal.

A summary of the background in this proceeding is that the plaintiff claims that she was injured when she tripped on an unmarked step in the Gateway Baptist Church at Wishart on 30 October 1999. The three year limitation period in which to bring her claim expired on 30 October 2002, but no proceedings had been issued by that date. As at June 2002, the plaintiff’s solicitors were aware of the impending expiration of limitation period but failed to issue proceedings. The Personal Injury Proceedings Act 2002 (“PIPA”) commenced operation on 18 June 2002. By an amendment on 29 August…

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 Patterson v The Baptist Union of Queensland

Details

AGLC: Patterson v The Baptist Union of Queensland [2006] QDC 166
Case: [2006] QDC 166
Decision Date: 19 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Patterson initiated proceedings against The Baptist Union of Queensland, alleging claims stemming from alleged personal injuries. The defendants contested the proceedings, seeking to have the plaintiff's claim struck out or, in the alternative, for judgment to be entered in their favour. The matter came before the court, which had to determine the validity of the plaintiff's claim and whether it complied with statutory requirements, particularly in light of a prior Court of Appeal decision that had set aside a District Court order. The court also needed to address the question of whether section 77DA of the relevant Act applied retrospectively to reverse the Court of Appeal decision and whether the plaintiff had complied with the notice of claim requirements.

The court examined the statutory provisions, particularly section 77DA, and concluded that it did not have retrospective effect. This finding meant that the prior Court of Appeal decision remained effective, and the order setting aside the District Court's grant of leave to proceed stood. The court also found that the plaintiff had not complied with the notice of claim requirements. As a result, the court determined that the plaintiff's claim did not meet the statutory criteria necessary to proceed. The court subsequently struck out the plaintiff's claim and ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of and incidental to this application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiff’s claim is struck out.

2. The plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to this application to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis under the District Court scale.

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:	Patterson v The Baptist Union of Queensland & Anor [2006] QDC 166
PARTIES:	KAY ANNETTE PATTERSON (Plaintiff) V THE BAPTIST UNION OF QUEENSLAND (First Defendant) & TIM HANNA (as representative of himself and all members of the Gateway Baptist Church as at 30 October 1999) (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	D4391 of 2003
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	19 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 April 2005
JUDGE:	Tutt DCJ
ORDER:	1. The plaintiff’s claim is struck out. 2. The plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to this application to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis under the District Court scale.
CATCHWORDS:	Application to strike out claim and statement of claim or alternatively that judgment be entered for the defendants – where plaintiff granted leave to proceed with claim pursuant to s18(1)(c)(ii) of Personal Injury Proceedings Act 2002 – where Court of Appeal decision set District Court order aside – whether s 77DA has retrospective effect to reverse the Court of Appeal decision – whether complying notice of claim. Acts Interpretation Act 1954 s 14B. Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2004. Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 Personal Injury Proceedings Act 2002 ss 18, 20, 77A, 77D and 77DA. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr 171 and 293. Macintosh v Lobel (1993) 30 NSWLR 441. Maxwell v Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 261. Patterson v Baptist Union of Queensland & Anor [2004] QCA 146. Production Spray Painting & Panel Beating Pty Ltd v Newnham (No 2) (1991) 27 NSWLR 659. Re Macks; ex parte Saint (2000) 204 CLR 158. The Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Cavanough (1935) 53 CLR 220.
COUNSEL:	Mr K F Holyoake for the plaintiff. Mr K N Wilson SC for the defendant.
SOLICITORS:	Sciaccas Lawyers for the plaintiff. HBM Lawyers for the defendant.