Raunio v Hills

Case [2001] FCA 1831

Raunio v Hills [2001] FCA 1831
Practice and procedure

Raunio v Hills [2001] FCA 1831

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - discovery - legal professional privilege - whether confidentiality existed in relation to file notes made by solicitor for injured plaintiff of conversations with insured owner of motor cycle involved in accident - claim for privilege by injured plaintiff in relation to such file notes upon basis of same having been prepared for contemplated litigation - claim rejected upon basis of absence of confidentiality.

Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act 1942 (NSW), s 14

Attorney-General (NT) v Maurice (1986) 161 CLR 475 applied

Goldberg v Ng (1996) 185 CLR 83 referred to

Health & Life Care Ltd v Price Waterhouse (1997) 69 SASR 362 referred to

Jamison v The Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1988) Aust Torts Reports 80-214 applied

Jarrett v Seymour (1993) 119 ALR 46 referred to

Sevic v Roarty (1998) 44 NSWLR 287 referred to

Heydon, Cross on Evidence (6th ed, 2000) pars 25240, 25255

SAM RAUNIO & NRMA INSURANCE LTD v JAMES HILLS

A 46 of 2001

WILCOX, MILES AND CONTI JJ

21 DECEMBER 2001

CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 46 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:SAM RAUNIO

FIRST APPLICANT

NRMA INSURANCE LTD

SECOND APPLICANT

AND:JAMES HILLS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

WILCOX, MILES AND CONTI JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 21 DECEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE: CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.       Leave to appeal be granted.

2.       The appeal be upheld and the orders made by Gray J on 28 June 2001 be set aside.

3.       In lieu of the said orders, it be ordered that the appeal against the interlocutory judgment of the Master of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory given on 5 February 2001 be dismissed.

4.       There be no order as to costs incurred in respect of the appeal to Gray J or to appeal to this Court.

Note:       Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 46 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: SAM RAUNIO

FIRST APPLICANT

NRMA INSURANCE LTD

SECOND APPLICANT

AND: JAMES HILLS

RESPONDENT

JUDGES: WILCOX, MILES AND CONTI JJ
DATE: 21 DECEMBER 2001
PLACE: CANBERRA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1       The Respondent to this application for leave to appeal ("Hills") is the plaintiff in proceedings commenced in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory for damages for severe spinal injuries sustained on 9 June 1995, when the motor cycle he was riding collided with a fence post. The First Applicant ("Raunio") was the owner of the motor cycle and the Second Applicant ("NRMA") was the third party insurer. Hills alleges two counts of negligence against Raunio, one concerning deficiency in the safety condition of the motor cycle at the time…

Continue reading Raunio v Hills

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Raunio v Hills [2001] FCA 1831
Case
[2001] FCA 1831
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal, heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, involved Raunio as the appellant and Hills as the respondent. The case revolved around the interpretation and application of a binding contract concerning the sale of property. The appellant sought to appeal a decision made by Justice Gray on 28 June 2001, which was subsequently contested by the respondent. The matter was further complicated by an interlocutory judgment made by the Master of the Supreme Court on 5 February 2001.

The central legal issues in the case involved the enforceability of the contract in question, specifically addressing whether there were any breaches or invalid terms that would render the agreement unenforceable. Additionally, the court had to determine the proper course of action regarding the interlocutory judgment and its implications on the overall case. The appellant argued that the original judgment should be set aside in favour of dismissing the appeal against the interlocutory judgment, while the respondent maintained the stance that the original judgment should stand.

In its reasoning, the court found that the original judgment contained errors in its interpretation of the contract terms and their enforceability. The court concluded that the contract was binding and that the appellant's arguments regarding breaches or invalid terms were not substantiated. Furthermore, the court held that the appeal against the interlocutory judgment should be dismissed, as it did not provide a valid basis for altering the original judgment. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the orders made by Justice Gray on 28 June 2001 were set aside. In lieu of those orders, the appeal against the interlocutory judgment of the Master of the Supreme Court given on 5 February 2001 was dismissed, with no order as to costs incurred in respect of the appeal to Justice Gray or to appeal to this Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal be granted.

2. The appeal be upheld and the orders made by Gray J on 28 June 2001 be set aside.

3. In lieu of the said orders, it be ordered that the appeal against the interlocutory judgment of the Master of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory given on 5 February 2001 be dismissed.

4. There be no order as to costs incurred in respect of the appeal to Gray J or to appeal to this Court.

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.