Legal Research
Cases
Syed v Crumpton

Syed v Crumpton

Case [2016] NSWSC 500 27 April 2016

Notice of Motion

Limitation Periods

Costs

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Syed v Crumpton [2016] NSWSC 500
Hearing dates: 14 April 2016
Date of orders: 27 April 2016
Decision date: 27 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
Motion is dismissed and Mr Syed is given leave to amend his statement of claim.
The usual costs order under the Rules is that costs follow the event. Given the conclusions I have reached the parties should confer and file proposed orders within 14 days. If there is any disagreement as to costs I will hear them.
Catchwords: PROCEDURE – notice of motion – claim under the blameless accident provisions of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) – insurer seeking proceedings against it be dismissed – Rule 14.28(1)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – whether there is reasonable cause of action – proceedings cannot be dismissed – pleadings to be amended – costs
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) (repealed)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Act 2006
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Axiak v Ingram [2012] NSWCA 311
Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IH00AAQS v Cross [2012] HCA 56; (2012) 248 CLR 378
Digby v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd [1942] 2 All ER 319
IW v The City of Perth [1997] HCA 30; (1997) 191 CLR 1
Kavalee v Burbidge (1998) 43 NSWLR 422
Khoury v Government Insurance Office (NSW) [1984] HCA 55; (1984) 165 CLR 622
Melenewycz v Whitfield [2015] NSWSC 1482
Nash v Sunshine Porcelain Potteries Ltd [1959] HCA 7; (1959) 101 CLR 353
O’Brien v Bank of Western Australia Ltd [2013] NSWCA 71
Public Transport Commission (NSW) v J Murray-More (NSW) Pty Ltd [1975] HCA 28; (1975) 132 CLR 336
Spencer v The Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118
Wilson v State Rail Authority of NSW [2010] NSWCA 198
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Ruman Syed (Plaintiff)
Lee Thomas Crumpton (First Defendant)
Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr R Sheldon SC and Ms J Gumbert (Plaintiff)
Mr J Catsanos (First Defendant)
Mr Deakin QC (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Shanahan Tudhope (Plaintiff)
Moray & Agnew (First Defendant)
Curwoods Legal Services Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/26947
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

In 23 February 2012, Mr Syed was riding a motorcycle along Lady Game Drive at Lindfield, behind the car, Mr Crumpton was driving, when it collided with a wallaby, which fell to the road, where it was struck by Mr Syed’s bike, causing him to be ejected and injured. Mr Syed brings a claim in negligence against Mr Crumpton and, in the alternative, a claim under the blameless accident provisions of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act1999 (NSW) against Mr Crumpton and NRMA, the third party insurer of his bike.
By a second…

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 Syed v Crumpton

Details

AGLC: Syed v Crumpton [2016] NSWSC 500
Case: [2016] NSWSC 500
Decision Date: 27 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Syed v Crumpton involved a claim under the blameless accident provisions of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW). The defendant, Crumpton, sought to have the proceedings dismissed as there was no reasonable cause of action against the insurer. The matter was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The court had to determine whether the insurer had reasonable cause to bring the proceedings and whether the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed under Rule 14.28(1)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the insurer had reasonable cause to bring the proceedings against the plaintiff. The court considered whether the plaintiff's claim was without merit and if it could be dismissed at the pleadings stage. The court examined the facts presented and the law applicable to the blameless accident provisions to determine if there was a reasonable cause of action. The court found that the plaintiff's claim was not without merit and that the insurer had a reasonable cause to bring the proceedings.

The court held that the insurer had a reasonable cause of action against the plaintiff, and therefore, the proceedings could not be dismissed. The court ordered that the pleadings be amended to reflect the correct parties and that the plaintiff pay the costs of the proceedings. The court ruled that the insurer's claim had merit and that the proceedings should proceed to determine the merits of the claim. The court's decision ensures that the insurer's rights are protected and that the proceedings are not dismissed without proper consideration of the facts and the law.

Orders