Tanska v Transport Accident Commission

[2000] VSC 56

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

                   CAUSES JURISDICTION

Not Restricted

No. 6563 of 1999

PEKKA ILMARI TANSKA	Applicant/Appellant
v
TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Warren J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 December 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 February 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Tanska v Transport Accident Commission
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 56

---

Transport Accident Act 1986, ss.93(11) - Transport Accident (General Amendment) Act 1994, s.10 - meaning of expressions "damages awarded" and "damages are awarded" - whether entering into terms of settlement constituted the awarding of damages - meaning of "award", "damages", "compensation" - scheme of transport accident legislation – Order 58.02, application for leave to appeal and an appeal from the County Court Master.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant/Appellant	Mr G. Garde QC with Mr M Corrigan	Deacons Graham & James
For the Respondent	Mr S. Kaye QC with Mr D. Masel	Maddock Lonie & Chisholm

HER HONOUR:

1. The proceeding is an application for leave to appeal pursuant to Order 58.02 and, if leave is granted, to appeal against orders made by the Master of the County Court.

Background

1. The background to the proceeding is that by writ issued in the County Court on 21 July 1997 in proceeding No. 974720 ("the County Court proceeding") Juliana Fricot as plaintiff ("the plaintiff") claimed damages for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident.  The accident occurred on 28 December 1993 at Box Hill in Victoria when a vehicle driven by Pekka Ilmari Tanska ("the defendant") collided with a vehicle driven by the plaintiff.

1. As a result of injuries suffered by the plaintiff in the accident the Transport Accident Commission ("the Commission") paid benefits, including impairment benefits in the sum of $16,206.96 to the plaintiff pursuant to ss.47 and 48 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 ("the Act"). There were payments of other medical expenses by the Commission in the sum of $5,949.90 that are not relevant for present purposes. At the time of the accident the vehicle driven by the defendant was registered in the State of South Australia. Section 94 of the Transport Accident Act provided that the Commission was not obliged to provide indemnity with respect to vehicles registered interstate. 

1. The State Government Insurance Commission of South Australia ("SGIC") was the compulsory third party insurer of the vehicle driven by the defendant in the collision.  Independently of the County Court proceeding the Transport Accident Commission sought to recover the benefits from the plaintiff without success.  Eventually, by summons dated 29 September 1998 (issued shortly before the trial date of the County Court proceeding), the Commission applied to be joined as a party to that proceeding.  On 14 October 1998 the application by the Commission was dismissed by His Honour Judge F.B. Lewis on the ground that the Commission lacked standing as it did not have an interest in the County Court proceeding until damages were awarded against the defendant.

1. In November 1998 the plaintiff and defendant settled the County Court…