Suncorp Insurance and Finance v Hill - [1998] QCA 112

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 112
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 2029 of 1997

Brisbane

Before

Fitzgerald P.
Davies J.A.
Williams J.

[Suncorp v. Hill]

BETWEEN:

SUNCORP INSURANCE AND FINANCE

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:

GLYNN ROBERT HILL

(Plaintiff) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P.

Judgment delivered 29 May 1998

The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are set out in the reasons for judgment of Williams J. I am

in general agreement with his Honour’s reasons in relation to liability,[1] and propose only to make brief

[1] Because it is unnecessary to do so, I have not given attention to the damages awarded by the respondent. However, I note that the award of $50,000 for the respondent’s “loss of opportunity to pursue, to the extent that his diminished capacity would have permitted, employment by participation in the management of a family company’s undertaking” seemed to me unsupported by evidence or principle at the end of the hearing.

comments.

1. As Williams J. has noted, there are similarities between this case and the decision of the New

South Wales Court of Appeal in NRMA Insurance Ltd v. Tatt.[2] McHugh J.A.’s dissent in that case

[2] (1989) 94 F.L.R. 339.

provides no assistance to the present respondent. His evidence, which was the foundation of his claim,

did not fall for consideration in isolation, or only in opposition to the contradictory testimony of another

witness; “... other evidence and probabilities [were] involved”.[3] It was plainly erroneous for the trial

[3] Soulemezis v. Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 N.S.W.L.R. 247 at p. 280 per McHugh J.A.

judge initially to focus solely on an assessment of the respondent as a witness, and, only after he had

accepted the respondent as credible, to make “precautionary” findings with respect to matters which

were relevant to the crucial issue of the respondent’s credibility which he had predetermined. This error

was exacerbated by the rejection of vital evidence by the respondent which was adverse to his interest.

2. While the cause of the fire might not have been able to be completely isolated from other issues,

it was central to the dispute. The determination of that matter, even if only in the negative sense of a

finding that the appellant’s expert’s evidence did not persuade the trial judge to the requisite standard

that his opinion was correct or that the opinion of the respondent’s expert was incorrect, was critical.

The trial judge erroneously failed to make sufficient findings with respect to the cause of the fire and to

adequately explain his reasons for those findings.[4]

3. The deficiencies in the approach adopted by the trial judge are emphasised by the consideration

that the appellant’s case was, predictably, circumstantial. The failure to make findings with respect to

the material circumstances, to consider those circumstances when weighing the respondent’s evidence,

and to explain the reasoning adopted were manifest errors.

[4] See NRMA v. Tatt; Cypressvale Pty Ltd v. Retail…

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 Suncorp Insurance and Finance v Hill

Details

AGLC: Suncorp Insurance and Finance v Hill [1998] QCA 112
Case: [1998] QCA 112
Decision Date: 29/05/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Suncorp Insurance and Finance challenged the District Court's decision to decline their claim for damages in respect of a fire at the home of Glynn Robert Hill. The District Court found that Suncorp had not proved that the fire was deliberately lit by Hill. Suncorp appealed on the basis that the District Court erred in its assessment of the evidence and in awarding damages for loss of opportunity. The appeal focused on whether the District Court had erred in law by not providing sufficient reasons for its conclusion that the fire was not deliberately lit by Hill. The court found that the District Court had failed to make sufficient findings regarding the cause of the fire and had not adequately explained its reasons for those findings. The court also noted that the award of $50,000 for loss of opportunity was unsupported by evidence or principle. The court ordered a retrial of the case and granted Hill a certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act to cover the costs of the appeal.

Orders