Singh v Rodden - [2013] ACTSC 272

DILBAGH SINGH V EMMA GRACE RODDEN AND INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED TRADING AS NRMA INSURANCE
[2013] ACTSC 272 (23 December 2013)

PROCEDURE – Steps required before commencing proceedings for motor vehicle accident claims – requirement for compulsory conference – requirement for a ‘certificate of readiness’ – effect of certificate of readiness – requirement for a mandatory final offer – discretion to dispense or defer the making of a final mandatory offer

Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 142(1)

Motor Accidents Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)
Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT), ss 5A, 97, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 155, 156A, Pt 4.7, 4.8, Ch 4
Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Amendment Act 2012 (ACT)

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 1179, 1306, Div 2.8.7

ACT, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 22 November 2007
Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Practice Direction No 1 of 2012 — Practice Direction – Docket system Civil matters – callovers, duty judges, the Master’s applications list and return of subpoenas, 13 August 2012
Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Bill 2007 (ACT)

Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93
Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge “Willemstad” (1976) 136 CLR 529
Choi v Collansi (2002) 37 MVR 381
Douch v Betts [2013] ACTSC 126
Furler v Haureliuk (2010) 4 ACTLR 230
Gitsham v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2003] 2 Qd R 251
Luck v Lusty EMS Pty Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 522
McIntosh v Hikechukwu (2011) 5 ACTLR 284
Racic v Haltiner (2010) 4 ACTLR 224
Sobey v Nicol (2007) 245 ALR 389
Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Jovanovic [2004] QSC 441
Verstappen v Fordyce (2004) 41 MVR 275
Young v Rothin [2009] ACTSC 71

No. SC 205 of 2013

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 23 December 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 205 of 2013
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

BETWEEN:DILBAGH SINGH

Plaintiff

AND:EMMA GRACE RODDEN

First Defendant

INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED TRADING AS NRMA INSURANCE

Second Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  23 December 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The parties and their lawyers attend a compulsory conference under Pt 4.7 of the Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT).

The parties be heard as to the date, time and place where the conference is to be held.

Under s 142 of the Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act, the obligation on the parties to exchange mandatory final offers be dispensed with.

The parties be heard as to costs.

The plaintiff, Dilbagh Singh, claims damages for personal injuries suffered in a motor vehicle collision said to have occurred on Kings Avenue, Parkes, ACT on 26 February 2010 when the car he was driving collided with a car driven by the first defendant, Emma Rodden.

Mr Singh claims that he suffered injuries to his neck, chest, abdomen, arms and knees and some psychological injury.

He claims that the collision was caused by the negligence of Ms Rodden. By letter dated 21 October…

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 Singh v Rodden

Details

AGLC: Singh v Rodden [2013] ACTSC 272
Case: [2013] ACTSC 272
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dilbagh Singh, the plaintiff, has commenced proceedings against Emma Grace Rodden and her insurer, Insurance Australia Limited, trading as NRMA Insurance, seeking damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendants have sought an order that the court fix a date, time, and place for a compulsory conference between the plaintiff and the defendants. Singh has resisted the application, arguing that a compulsory conference should not be held at this time because his injuries have not stabilised, and he is not in a position to make a proper assessment of his damages. Singh's difficulty, as identified by his counsel, is that the mandatory final offers have statutory consequences as to costs, and where damages are awarded in court proceedings that are less than the plaintiff's mandatory final offer, the claimant may be required to pay the defendant's costs from the date of the offer and they may be indemnity costs. This is compounded by the statutory provisions which, unlike a Calderbank offer, give no opportunity to vary such an offer. The court held that the compulsory conference is a critical part of the regime established by the Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act. However, the court found that the real vice is the requirement for mandatory final offers if settlement is not achieved at the conference. The court found that there is clear unfairness to both parties in that requirement where the basis of a fair estimate of damages is so uncertain. The court will make orders accordingly and will hear the parties as to the terms of the orders and as to costs.

Orders