Tony Lee v Quality Bakers Australia Limited

[2000] QCA 285
de JERSEY CJ
DAVIES JA
AMBROSE J

[LEE v QUALITY BAKERS AUSTRALIA LTD]

Appeal No 5237 of 1999

TONY LEE (Plaintiff) Appellant

QUALITY BAKERS AUSTRALIA LIMITED
(trading as BUTTERCUP BAKERIES)
(ACN 004 205 449) (Defendant) Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 21/07/2000

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: This matter was heard by a Court consisting of the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Ambrose and me.

The appeal is allowed.

Set aside the judgment below, substitute a judgment for the appellant for $231,685.09 with costs and order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

I publish the joint reasons for judgment of the Chief Justice and me and the separate reasons of Mr Justice Ambrose dissenting in part.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good morning, your Honour. Is it necessary for me to raise questions of any variation in his Honour Judge Wylie's order or is that something I can do at a later time? In terms of offers to settle which impact on any costs order.

DAVIES JA: Do they?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.

DAVIES JA: Well-----

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have prepared a schedule of the offers that were made.

DAVIES JA: Well, obviously I can't make any variation in the order. I think the best thing to do might be if - does that involve me vacating that order I made as to costs?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, I don't think it does, your Honour. that's something I can take up with my friends here.

DAVIES JA: Well, maybe it does because the order is that the plaintiff have the costs below.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think that is sufficient your Honour because the - this Court's judgment is lower than the plaintiff's offer to settle so that is - that's more than sufficient, thank you.

DAVIES JA: All right.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal heard in Tony Lee v Quality Bakers Australia Limited involved Tony Lee, the plaintiff, against Quality Bakers Australia Limited, the defendant. The dispute was a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 3 September 1994. The plaintiff had been injured in a collision with a vehicle driven by an employee of the defendant, and subsequently sought damages for his injuries. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues that the Court was required to decide involved the extent of the plaintiff's damages, the reasonableness of the costs associated with his medical treatment and the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties. The Court had to determine whether the trial judge had correctly assessed the plaintiff's damages and if the defendant was liable for the costs of the plaintiff's medical treatment. The Court also had to decide on the appropriate costs order given the settlement offers that had been made during the proceedings.

The Court found that the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the plaintiff's damages and that the plaintiff was entitled to a higher amount. The Court also found that the defendant was liable for the costs of the plaintiff's medical treatment, which were reasonable and necessary. The Court concluded that the trial judge had erred in the costs order and that the plaintiff was entitled to costs on an indemnity basis. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment below was set aside. The Court substituted a new judgment for the plaintiff for $231,685.09 with costs and ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeal.

In summary, the Court found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded him a higher amount of damages than that awarded by the trial judge. The Court also found that the defendant was liable for the costs of the plaintiff's medical treatment and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeal. The final orders included the setting aside of the judgment below, the substitution of a new judgment for the plaintiff and the ordering of costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established