Rinaudo v Cleary - [2012] ACTSC 5

DOMENICO RINAUDO v NICHOLAS MORRIS CLEARY
[2012] ACTSC 5 (31 January 2012)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – personal injury action – provision of medical reports by defendant to plaintiff – Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002, ch 5- whether of continuing application after commencement of court proceedings
STATUTES – Civil law (Wrongs) Act 2002 – disclosure of medical reports under ch 5 – whether obligation continues after commencement of court proceedings

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act2002, Pt 5.3, ss 49, 50, s 63, 68, 72, 74, 75, 78
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 119
Court Procedures Rules 2006, Pt 2.8, 2.12, rr 601, 1201, 1241, 1242
Legislation Act2001, ss 126, 142
Civil Law Wrongs Amendment Bill 2006
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (QLD)

Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority v Reid (1991) 29 FCR 500
Pappas v Noble (2006) 199 FLR 116: [2006] ACTSC 39
Zejnic v Marcantonio & ors [2008] ACTSC 45
Angus v Conelius & anor [2007] QCA 190
Sevic v Roarty (1998) 44 NSWLR 287
Dean v More Than a Morsel Pty Ltd [2002] ACTSC 101; (2002) 170 FLR 432
Watkins v State of Queensland [2008] 1 Qd R 564
Hamilton v Merck and Co Inc (2006) 66 NSWLR 48

No. SC 246 of 2010

Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 31 January 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 246 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

BETWEEN DOMENICO RINAUDO
Plaintiff
v

AND NICHOLAS MORRIS CLEARY

Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  31 January 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

the defendant give to the plaintiff within seven days a copy of the report provided by Dr WJ Coyle to the defendant’s solicitors following his assessment of the plaintiff on 2 December 2010.

the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application.

Before the court is an interlocutory application by the defendant in an action for damages for personal injury arising out of a motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff seeks a copy of a report by Dr WJ Coyle, an orthopaedic surgeon who examined him in December 2010 at the request of the solicitors for the defendant for the purposes of the action. The determination of the application will turn on the construction of certain provisions of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act2002 and their interaction with certain of the Court Procedures Rules 2006.

Factual background

The plaintiff was injured in an intersection collision between his car and the defendant’s car at Hume in the Australian Capital Territory on 22 July 2007. The plaintiff claims that he suffered injuries, principally to the neck and low back. The defendant’s vehicle was relevantly insured with NRMA Insurance.

The plaintiff instructed solicitors, who wrote to NRMA Insurance in September 2008 enclosing a claim notification form and other background material. NRMA wrote back early in November 2008. They said that they accepted the notice as complying with the provisions of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act. They sought further particulars…

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 Rinaudo v Cleary

Details

AGLC: Rinaudo v Cleary [2012] ACTSC 5
Case: [2012] ACTSC 5
Decision Date: January 31, 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rinaudo v Cleary involved a dispute over the provision of medical reports in the context of a personal injury claim. The plaintiff, Rinaudo, sought damages for injuries sustained in an incident, and the defendant, Cleary, was required to provide relevant medical reports as part of the proceedings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court, where the central issue was whether the defendant's obligation to provide medical reports under the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 continued after the commencement of court proceedings.

The court had to determine whether the legislative provisions requiring the disclosure of medical reports applied even after the initiation of legal action. Specifically, the court considered whether the obligations under Chapter 5 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 remained in force post the commencement of proceedings. This raised questions about the interplay between statutory disclosure requirements and the procedural rules governing personal injury litigation in the state.

The court found that the statutory obligation to provide medical reports did indeed persist after the commencement of court proceedings. The reasoning was based on a literal interpretation of the statutory language, which did not explicitly limit the obligation to a pre-litigation stage. Consequently, the court held that the defendant was required to furnish the plaintiff with the medical report prepared by Dr WJ Coyle following his assessment on 2 December 2010. The defendant was ordered to provide this report to the plaintiff within seven days, thereby upholding the statutory disclosure requirement.

Orders

Orders of the court

the defendant give to the plaintiff within seven days a copy of the report provided by Dr WJ Coyle to the defendant’s solicitors following his assessment of the plaintiff on 2 December 2010.

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.