Pokora v Matthews

[2009] QDC 189

[2009] QDC 189

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JUDGE GRIFFIN SC

No 3625 of 2008

ANNA POKORA	Appellant
and
EUGENIUSZ POKORA	Appellant
and
DAVID CHRISTOPHER MATTHEWS	Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 17/06/2009
ORDER

1-1

HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal from the decision of Magistrate

1

Cull concerning a one-day hearing in relation to a motor
vehicle accident which occurred at the intersection of

Cavendish Road and Chatsworth Road at Coorparoo.

It is unnecessary to go into the details except broadly to say	10
the two vehicles came into collision and central to those
issues traversed were questions of negligence by both parties,
where and when they were in the intersection, and what lights
were operating when they entered their respective parts of the
intersection.	20
The case was originally based on negligence wholly by each
party in the claim and counter claim. The magistrate's
reasons, so-called, are not in fact reasons at all. She
simply announced a result which found that the plaintiff had	30
not proved her claim and to like effect that she, in respect of the counter claim, she dismissed that, saying "the counter claim alleges that the plaintiff failed to stop at a red light and I am not satisfied as to that."
40
There is, in the statement she made in respect of the claim
itself, a similar lack of any detail as to her reasoning. She
said, "I do not, on the balance, accept that the accident was
caused by the defendant's negligence. The claim is
dismissed."	50

The previous 20 pages or so of transcript before these so- called reasons involved discussions with counsel, announcements by the magistrate that she was going to make 1-2 ORDER 60

1

findings. Perhaps on one view she made some findings as to
central facts. It is simply too hard to tell precisely what
actual findings she made, and it is certainly absolutely clear
that in relation to her reasons it is entirely unclear what

facts, if any, she used to found those reasons. She in fact	10
came to a conclusion that there was a third possibility in
relation to the way in which the accident occurred. That may
or may not be so. It may or may not have been supported by
evidence although it was not claimed. That it was not
claimed, that is the third scenario, is not fatal to the	20
sustaining of the final result. It is, however, simply not clear what she did and what she took into account.
On that basis alone, apart from any of the other grounds of
appeal argued, I am distinctly unsettled by the way in which	30
the result came about. I must say, however, having read
carefully the material, the result which the magistrate
reached, in my view, is one which is entirely and
substantially able to be based on the evidence which was
given.	40
I am sympathetic entirely to the respondent to this appeal in the circumstances but I feel I have no other course but to allow the appeal.
50

It is to be hoped that sense will prevail when this matter is looked at once again, perhaps by new eyes in the matter, considered again by legal representatives, but I feel that the only course which is open is to send the matter back to the 1-3 ORDER 60

1

Magistrates Court to be reviewed.

...

HIS HONOUR: I am satisfied that in this case it was not the	10
plaintiff/appellants' fault that the matter needed to be
brought before the Court. I am likewise satisfied that it was
not the defendant's fault that the matter came before the
Court. Indeed, the result, as I have said, which was reached
by the magistrate was very amply borne out by the evidence.	20
It is the process by which that decision came about that has been fundamentally at question and has led to the conclusion that the appeal should be allowed.
In this case I will grant a certificate to both parties under	30
the Appeals Cost Fund Act section 15 and for each party's costs in this hearing.
...
40
HIS HONOUR: The formal orders I make are the matter be remitted to the Magistrates Court Brisbane for rehearing or for hearing, that the costs of the first hearing be reserved to the conclusion of the further hearing of this matter.
50
...

-----

1-4 ORDER 60