Ross v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd - [2002] QCA 93

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ross v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2002] QCA 93

PARTIES:

ELIZABETH ROSS
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
TRISHA YOLANDA QUIRK
(first defendant)
SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED
ACN 075 695 966
(second defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5561 of 2001
DC No 1439 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 March 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 February 2002

JUDGES:

Davies and Thomas JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – motor car accident – where appellant suffered neck and lower back injury – appellant qualified in Poland as a dental technician but had not worked in that capacity for 13 years preceding the accident – where nil assessment for past economic loss – where global assessment given for future economic loss - where trial judge acted on basis that appellant’s condition would improve

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – DAMAGES INADEQUATE – whether trial judge erred in giving nil assessment for economic loss – application of principles in Malec v JC Hutton – where no error – whether trial judge erred in making

a global assessment – application of s 16 Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) – s 16 does not rule out the making of a global assessment – where global assessment appropriate

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – AWARD OF INTEREST ON DAMAGES – IN QUEENSLAND – where award of damages included interest – whether an additional sum for interest ought to have been given

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – WHERE MONEY PAID INTO COURT OR OFFER OF COMPROMISE MADE – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – whether trial judge erred in refusing to order costs on indemnity basis – where appellant made settlement offer before trial – where nature of case not clearly made out – where no error in refusing to award costs on indemnity basis

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s16
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, Chapter 9 Part V

Elford v FAI [1994] 1 Qd R 258, considered
Hadzigeorgiou v O’Sullivan [1983] 1 Qd R 55, considered
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638, applied
Powell v Black [1982] Qd R 801, 806, applied
Rogers v Brambles Australia Ltd [1998] 1 Qd R 212, considered

COUNSEL:

M Grant-Taylor SC for the appellant

A M Daubney SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McInnes Wilson for the appellant
Walsh Halligan Douglas for the respondent

DAVIES JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Thomas JA and with the orders he proposes.

THOMAS JA: This is an appeal by a plaintiff against alleged inadequacy of damages.

The appellant was 37 years old at the date of accident (19…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ross v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] QCA 93
Decision Date: 22 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ross v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd, the Court of Appeal examined a dispute concerning the assessment of damages following a motor vehicle accident. The appellant, Ross, sustained injuries to his neck and lower back in the accident. Although Ross was qualified as a dental technician in Poland, he had not practiced in that capacity for 13 years prior to the accident. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge's assessment of damages was correct, particularly regarding the past and future economic losses.

The court needed to determine if the trial judge had erred in awarding no past economic loss and making a global assessment for future economic loss. The court found no error in the trial judge's decision, adhering to the principles established in Malec v JC Hutton. The court held that section 16 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) did not preclude the making of a global assessment, and in this case, such an assessment was deemed appropriate. The court also considered whether an additional sum for interest on the damages should have been awarded, given that the damages already included interest. The court found no grounds for such an additional award. Finally, the court examined whether the trial judge erred in not ordering costs on an indemnity basis, considering the appellant's settlement offer before trial. The court concluded that there was no error in the refusal to award such costs.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, meaning that the original trial judge's assessment of damages was upheld, and the appellant was not entitled to additional interest or costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

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:	Ross v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2002] QCA 93
PARTIES:	ELIZABETH ROSS (plaintiff/appellant) v TRISHA YOLANDA QUIRK (first defendant) SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 075 695 966 (second defendant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 5561 of 2001 DC No 1439 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	22 March 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 February 2002
JUDGES:	Davies and Thomas JJA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – motor car accident – where appellant suffered neck and lower back injury – appellant qualified in Poland as a dental technician but had not worked in that capacity for 13 years preceding the accident – where nil assessment for past economic loss – where global assessment given for future economic loss - where trial judge acted on basis that appellant’s condition would improve APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – DAMAGES INADEQUATE – whether trial judge erred in giving nil assessment for economic loss – application of principles in Malec v JC Hutton – where no error – whether trial judge erred in making a global assessment – application of s 16 Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) – s 16 does not rule out the making of a global assessment – where global assessment appropriate APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – AWARD OF INTEREST ON DAMAGES – IN QUEENSLAND – where award of damages included interest – whether an additional sum for interest ought to have been given PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – COSTS – WHERE MONEY PAID INTO COURT OR OFFER OF COMPROMISE MADE – ORDER FOR COSTS ON INDEMNITY BASIS – whether trial judge erred in refusing to order costs on indemnity basis – where appellant made settlement offer before trial – where nature of case not clearly made out – where no error in refusing to award costs on indemnity basis Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s16 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, Chapter 9 Part V Elford v FAI [1994] 1 Qd R 258, considered Hadzigeorgiou v O’Sullivan [1983] 1 Qd R 55, considered Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638, applied Powell v Black [1982] Qd R 801, 806, applied Rogers v Brambles Australia Ltd [1998] 1 Qd R 212, considered
COUNSEL:	M Grant-Taylor SC for the appellant A M Daubney SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	McInnes Wilson for the appellant Walsh Halligan Douglas for the respondent