CITATION: | Royce v Youi Pty Ltd [2018] QCAT 5 |
PARTIES: | Stephen Royce |
| v | |
| Youi Pty Ltd ABN 79123074733 (Respondent) | |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDO1473/16 |
MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
HEARING DATES: | 7 March 2017, 18 May 2017 and 26 July 2017 |
HEARD AT: | Southport |
DECISION OF: | Adjudicator Alan Walsh |
DELIVERED ON: | 12 January 2018 |
DELIVERED AT: | Southport |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The Application filed on 23 November 2016 is dismissed. |
CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – minor civil dispute – consumer dispute – where motor vehicle partially inundated in floodwater – where insured claimed on comprehensive motor vehicle policy – where claim accepted and settled – where insurer paid out agreed value – where agreed value exceeded vehicle market value – where property in vehicle salvage passed to insurer INSURANCE – MOTOR VEHICLES – INSURANCE OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE – where contractual discretion to declare vehicle total loss – where vehicle so declared – where insured indemnified according to insurance policy – where vehicle written off – where vehicle listed on written-off vehicle register – where vehicle not re-registrable for public road use – where vehicle salvage sold at public auction – where insured informed of registration preclusion before auction – where insured bought vehicle salvage at auction – where insured believed removal of vehicle from register achievable for error – where insurer denied error – where vehicle not removed from register – whether vehicle wrongly declared total loss and written off – whether insurer breached insurance policy and duty of utmost good faith to insured TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – where insured a consumer – where consumer claim both liquidated and un-liquidated – where Australian Consumer Law applies – where contract of insurance excluded from consumer guarantee provisions of Australian Consumer Law – where no consumer guarantee remedy – where indemnity within definition of a service under Australian Consumer Law – where contract of insurance not excluded from misleading and deceptive conduct and/or unconscionable dealing provisions of Australian Consumer Law TRADE PRACTICES – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT – where misleading and deceptive conduct not alleged by insured – where insured alleged insurance policy voidable or void for unconscionable conduct – whether insurer acted unconscionably ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where insured sought declarations and injunction for removal of vehicle from written-off vehicle register – where legally qualified member of the Tribunal may make declarations and order injunctions – where declarations neither necessary nor appropriate – where inordinate delay in bringing proceedings – whether injunctive relief warranted or appropriate DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – where insured claimed damages for breach of contractual duty implied by common law – where insured claimed damages for breach of statute and contract – whether damages causally related to alleged… |
Continue reading Royce v Youi Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Royce v Youi Pty Ltd [2018] QCAT 5
- Case
- [2018] QCAT 5
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues for the Tribunal to address were whether the insurer breached the insurance policy and acted unconscionably, whether the insured could recover a second indemnity as damages, and whether the insured was entitled to additional damages for the costs of storing the vehicle and repairing and re-registering it. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the claim for unliquidated damages for breach of the common law implied term of due care and skill in provision of services fell within their jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found that the insurer had not breached the insurance policy or acted unconscionably. They ruled that the insured could not recover a second indemnity as damages, as it would amount to double recovery. The Tribunal further held that the claimed damages for the costs of storing the vehicle and repairing and re-registering it were not causally related to the insurer's alleged breach of contract and statute, and therefore were not recoverable. The Tribunal also found that the claim for unliquidated damages for breach of the common law implied term of due care and skill in provision of services did not fall within their jurisdiction. The Tribunal dismissed the insured's application and ordered that the insured pay the insurer's costs of and incidental to the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Application filed on 23 November 2016 is dismissed.
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.