Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Brown - [2004] QCA 325

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Brown [2004] QCA 325

PARTIES:

SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED
ACN 075 695 966
(applicant/applicant)
v
ALAN LAWSON BROWN
(respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6453 of 2004
DC No 2146 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 September 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 August 2004

JUDGES:

McPherson and Williams JJA and Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Leave to appeal granted1.

Allow the appeal2.

Set aside the order of the District Court of 28 June 2004, and in lieu thereof order that the respondent execute an authority directed to Centrelink requesting the release to the solicitors for the applicant of documents on the respondent’s Centrelink file relating to payments by Centrelink to the respondent during the period of three years immediately preceding 2 December 2000 and thereafter3.

Order the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application and appeal, with allowance for Senior Counsel, to be assessed on an indemnity basis4.

CATCHWORDS:

INSURANCE – THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE – MOTOR VEHICLES – COMPULSORY INSURANCE LEGISLATION – RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF INSURER IN RESPECT OF DEFENCE AND COMPROMISE – QUEENSLAND – where respondent made claim for damages for personal injury from a motor vehicle accident – where respondent had received payments from Centrelink – where respondent refused to sign further authority directed to Centrelink enabling applicant to obtain information from Centrelink’s file – whether respondent obliged to sign further authority

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 3, s 37, s 45, s 50
Motor Accident Insurance Regulation 1994 (Qld), reg 10

Attard v Hore & Anor [2002] QSC 437; SC No 530 of 2002, 30 August 2002, considered
Esso Australia Resources v Plowman (1995) 183 CLR 10, cited
Gitsham v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2003] 2 Qd R 251, cited
King v A G Australia Holdings Ltd (2002) 121 FCR 480, cited
Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Hill [2004] QCA 202; Appeal No 9790 of 2003, 11 June 2004, cited

COUNSEL:

R J Douglas SC for the applicant
M Grant-Taylor SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Jensen McConaghy for the applicant
Carter Capner for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: I agree with the views stated by Williams JA in his reasons in this matter and with the orders he proposes. I think it should also be borne in mind that there is now a good deal of authority that documents, and the information they contain, discovered or disclosed in civil proceedings may be used only for the purposes of that litigation and not otherwise. For a recent application of this principle, see King v A G Australia Holdings Ltd (2002) 121 FCR 480, 504-505. There is every reason why a similar duty should be regarded as applying to documents and…

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 Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Brown 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: [2004] QCA 325
Decision Date: 10 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd sought an appeal against the respondent, Brown, in relation to a motor vehicle accident claim for personal injury. Brown had previously received payments from Centrelink, and Suncorp sought access to Centrelink’s file to gather information about these payments. Brown refused to sign an authority that would have allowed Suncorp to obtain this information from Centrelink. The appeal hinged on whether Brown was legally required to sign the authority for Suncorp to access the relevant Centrelink documents.

The central legal issue was whether the respondent was obligated to sign the authority directed to Centrelink. The Court needed to determine the extent of an insurer's rights under compulsory insurance legislation, particularly in relation to obtaining information from Centrelink, when the insured party had received payments from Centrelink. This involved interpreting the statutory obligations of the respondent under the insurance legislation and the procedural requirements for accessing information from Centrelink.

The Court found that Brown was indeed obliged to sign the authority for Suncorp to access Centrelink's file. It ruled that under the compulsory insurance legislation, the insurer has the right to obtain information relevant to the claim from Centrelink, and this right extends to compelling the insured to sign an appropriate authority. The Court considered that the statutory provisions and common law principles supported this obligation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the previous order was set aside, and Brown was directed to execute the required authority.

The Court granted leave to appeal and set aside the previous order of the District Court, substituting it with an order requiring Brown to execute the authority for Centrelink documents. Suncorp was also ordered to pay Brown's costs of the application and appeal, with an allowance for Senior Counsel, to be assessed on an indemnity basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted1.

Allow the appeal2.

Set aside the order of the District Court of 28 June 2004, and in lieu thereof order that the respondent execute an authority directed to Centrelink requesting the release to the solicitors for the applicant of documents on the respondent’s Centrelink file relating to payments by Centrelink to the respondent during the period of three years immediately preceding 2 December 2000 and thereafter3.

Order the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application and appeal, with allowance for Senior Counsel, to be assessed on an indemnity basis4.

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:	Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Brown [2004] QCA 325
PARTIES:	SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 075 695 966 (applicant/applicant) v ALAN LAWSON BROWN (respondent/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6453 of 2004 DC No 2146 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 September 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 August 2004
JUDGES:	McPherson and Williams JJA and Holmes J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Leave to appeal granted1. Allow the appeal2. Set aside the order of the District Court of 28 June 2004, and in lieu thereof order that the respondent execute an authority directed to Centrelink requesting the release to the solicitors for the applicant of documents on the respondent’s Centrelink file relating to payments by Centrelink to the respondent during the period of three years immediately preceding 2 December 2000 and thereafter3. Order the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application and appeal, with allowance for Senior Counsel, to be assessed on an indemnity basis4.
CATCHWORDS:	INSURANCE – THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE – MOTOR VEHICLES – COMPULSORY INSURANCE LEGISLATION – RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF INSURER IN RESPECT OF DEFENCE AND COMPROMISE – QUEENSLAND – where respondent made claim for damages for personal injury from a motor vehicle accident – where respondent had received payments from Centrelink – where respondent refused to sign further authority directed to Centrelink enabling applicant to obtain information from Centrelink’s file – whether respondent obliged to sign further authority Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 3, s 37, s 45, s 50 Motor Accident Insurance Regulation 1994 (Qld), reg 10 Attard v Hore & Anor [2002] QSC 437; SC No 530 of 2002, 30 August 2002, considered Esso Australia Resources v Plowman (1995) 183 CLR 10, cited Gitsham v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2003] 2 Qd R 251, cited King v A G Australia Holdings Ltd (2002) 121 FCR 480, cited Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd v Hill [2004] QCA 202; Appeal No 9790 of 2003, 11 June 2004, cited
COUNSEL:	R J Douglas SC for the applicant M Grant-Taylor SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Jensen McConaghy for the applicant Carter Capner for the respondent