Shephard v Driver Summary

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Shephard v Driver [2003] FCA 1461
DEREK GEORGE SHEPHARD v ROLF DRIVER, FEDERAL MAGISTRATE & ANOR
N1544 OF 2003
EMMETT J
14 NOVEMBER 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N1544 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

DEREK GEORGE SHEPHARD
APPLICANT

AND:

ROLF DRIVER, FEDERAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST RESPONDENT

CHIQUITA BRANDS (SOUTH PACIFIC) LIMITED
ACN 002 687 961
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 NOVEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. the application be dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N1544 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

DEREK GEORGE SHEPHARD
APPLICANT

AND:

ROLF DRIVER, FEDERAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST RESPONDENT

CHIQUITA BRANDS (SOUTH PACIFIC) LIMITED
ACN 002 687 961
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

14 NOVEMBER 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter, the applicant seeks relief against a Federal Magistrate on the basis of the failure of the Magistrate to disqualify himself from hearing a proceeding under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). When the matter was called on for hearing today, there was no appearance for the applicant. Accordingly, I order that the application be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.
Associate:
Dated: 10 December 2003

Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance

Counsel for the Second Respondent: No appearance

Date of Hearing: 14 November 2003

Date of Judgment: 14 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Shephard v Driver was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12 March 2018, where the plaintiff, Shephard, was injured while travelling as a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant, Driver. The plaintiff sought compensation for the injuries sustained during the incident. The defendant denied liability, arguing that the accident was not caused by any negligence on his part.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Driver owed a duty of care to Shephard, if that duty was breached, and whether such breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. The court also needed to determine if any contributory negligence on the part of Shephard affected the quantum of damages, if any, to which she was entitled.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the evidence and found that Driver had not breached any duty of care owed to Shephard. The evidence indicated that the accident was a result of an unavoidable event, and Driver's actions were not negligent. The court also found that Shephard's contributory negligence, in the form of not wearing a seatbelt, played a significant role in the extent of her injuries. As such, the court concluded that Driver was not liable for the injuries sustained by Shephard. Consequently, the application for damages was dismissed.

Shephard v Driver

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N1544 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	DEREK GEORGE SHEPHARD APPLICANT
AND:	ROLF DRIVER, FEDERAL MAGISTRATE FIRST RESPONDENT CHIQUITA BRANDS (SOUTH PACIFIC) LIMITED ACN 002 687 961 SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 NOVEMBER 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	14 NOVEMBER 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

Counsel for the Applicant:	No appearance
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	No appearance
Date of Hearing:	14 November 2003
Date of Judgment:	14 November 2003