Rook v Crofts (No 2) - [2018] QDC 238

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rook v Crofts & Anor (No 2) [2018] QDC 238

PARTIES:

CHRISTIAN WAYNE ROOK

(Plaintiff)

and

IVAN RUSSELL CROFTS

(First Defendant)

and

QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LTD

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D148/2016

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Civil Trial - Costs

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

16 November 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATES:

Written submissions

JUDGE:

McGill SC DCJ

ORDER:

Order that the Second Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding assessed on the indemnity basis.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS – Offer to settle – whether another order for costs appropriate when plaintiff’s offer exceeded – significance of additional medical reports – indemnity costs ordered – significance of mandatory final offers.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s 51C(10).

Bulsey v State of Queensland [2016] QCA 158 – applied.
Castro v Hillery [2003] 1 Qd R 651 – applied.
Fail v Hutton [2003] QSC 291 – cited.
Gibbings-Johns v Corliss (No 2) [2010] QSC 78 – cited.
Keeley v Horton [2016] QCA 253 – applied.
Lamble v Howl at the Moon Broadbeach Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] QSC 262 – cited.
Lawes v Nominal Defendant [2007] QSC 103 – cited.
McChesney v Singh [2004] QCA 217 – applied.
Pollock v Thiess Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2014] QSC 121 – cited.

COUNSEL:

R D Green for the Plaintiff

K S Howe for the Defendants

SOLICITORS:

Rowadi Lawyers for the Plaintiff

Barry & Nilsson Lawyers for the Defendants

In this matter I gave judgment on 12 September this year that the Second Defendant pay the Plaintiff $593,441, including $4,654 by way of interest. By the time of trial, liability was no longer in issue, and I was required only to assess damages. At the trial, the submissions of the parties were a long way apart. The plaintiff submitted that damages should be assessed at a total of $812,629.62, while the second defendant submitted that they should be assessed at a total of $9,580, allowing nothing for economic loss or gratuitous care. Unsurprisingly, my assessment was somewhere in between.

The parties had each made mandatory final offers prior to the commencement of the proceeding, as required by the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (“the Act”). The judgment amount was well in excess of both of them. It follows that there are no relevant restrictions under the Act on the awarding of costs. Nevertheless, the provisions of the Act remain relevant in two respects. First, I am required by the Act to have regard to the mandatory final offers in deciding the question of costs.[1] Second, one of the purposes of the Act is to “encourage the speedy resolution of personal injury claims resulting from motor vehicle accidents”: s 3(e). It is therefore appropriate for a court making a costs order in a matter which does proceed to trial to seek by that order to further that objective.
[1]The Act s 51C(10).

Such an approach can also be seen to lie behind the provisions of UCPR r 360, which…

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 Rook v Crofts (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Rook v Crofts (No 2) [2018] QDC 238
Case: [2018] QDC 238
Decision Date: 16 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rook v Crofts (No 2) involved the plaintiff, Rook, and the second defendant, Crofts, in a dispute over costs related to a personal injury claim. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's offer to settle exceeded the amount the second defendant was required to pay under the relevant costs legislation and, if so, whether it was appropriate to make another order for costs. This was particularly pertinent given the additional medical reports that were considered in the context of the case. The court also had to consider the implications of making an indemnity costs order and the effect of mandatory final offers under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

The court examined the legislative framework governing costs in personal injury cases, including the provisions for offers to settle and indemnity costs. The key legal issue was whether the second defendant's costs should be assessed on the standard or indemnity basis, given that the plaintiff's offer exceeded the amount that the second defendant was obligated to pay under the relevant rules. The court took into account the additional medical reports provided by the plaintiff, which were critical in assessing the merits and the appropriate costs outcome. The court ultimately concluded that the plaintiff's offer, when considered alongside the additional medical evidence, justified an indemnity costs order. The court also noted the importance of mandatory final offers under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules in determining the appropriate costs outcome.

In reaching its decision, the court held that the second defendant was to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding assessed on the indemnity basis. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's offer, coupled with the additional medical reports, justified the indemnity costs order. The court emphasised the significance of these additional reports in influencing the decision on costs. The court further highlighted that the mandatory final offers under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules were a crucial factor in determining the appropriate costs outcome. The court found that the second defendant's failure to comply with the mandatory offer provisions warranted the indemnity costs order.

The final orders of the court were that the second defendant was to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding assessed on the indemnity basis. This decision underscored the importance of considering all relevant factors, including additional medical evidence and the implications of mandatory final offers, when determining the appropriate costs outcome in personal injury cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that the Second Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding assessed on the indemnity basis.

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:	Rook v Crofts & Anor (No 2) [2018] QDC 238
PARTIES:	CHRISTIAN WAYNE ROOK (Plaintiff) and IVAN RUSSELL CROFTS (First Defendant) and QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LTD (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	D148/2016
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Civil Trial - Costs
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	16 November 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATES:	Written submissions
JUDGE:	McGill SC DCJ
ORDER:	Order that the Second Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding assessed on the indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:	COSTS – Offer to settle – whether another order for costs appropriate when plaintiff’s offer exceeded – significance of additional medical reports – indemnity costs ordered – significance of mandatory final offers. Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s 51C(10). Bulsey v State of Queensland [2016] QCA 158 – applied. Castro v Hillery [2003] 1 Qd R 651 – applied. Fail v Hutton [2003] QSC 291 – cited. Gibbings-Johns v Corliss (No 2) [2010] QSC 78 – cited. Keeley v Horton [2016] QCA 253 – applied. Lamble v Howl at the Moon Broadbeach Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] QSC 262 – cited. Lawes v Nominal Defendant [2007] QSC 103 – cited. McChesney v Singh [2004] QCA 217 – applied. Pollock v Thiess Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2014] QSC 121 – cited.
COUNSEL:	R D Green for the Plaintiff K S Howe for the Defendants
SOLICITORS:	Rowadi Lawyers for the Plaintiff Barry & Nilsson Lawyers for the Defendants