Viet Hoang Dao v. Cochrane

[2009] QDC 261

[2009] QDC 261

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 125 of 2004

VIET HOANG DAO	Plaintiff
and
ALLAN COCHRANE AND ANOR	Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 30/06/2009

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 483, r 485 - On adjournment of determination of an issue whether the plaintiff's claim for damages for personal injury, where he had left Australia and after charges of solicitor not recorded on the Court file, order made at Court's instance identifying an address for service for him.

HIS HONOUR: Order as per initialled draft. The Court is adjourning until the 28th of July 2009 the hearing for determination ordered under r 483 of an issue raised by the applicant/defendant insurer as to whether or not the proceeding has been compromised by the acceptance by a legal practitioner then taken to be acting for the plaintiff (who has returned to the United States where he resides) and a solicitor acting for the insurer.

If the insurer succeeds on that issue the proceeding will go no further.  I've raised with Mr Lynch for the applicant the curious absence from the orders proposed in the application of a condition requiring that his client pay the supposedly agreed settlement amount if, pursuant to rule 485 as requested, "judgment be given for the defendants" in the proceedings.

The other matter which has taken some time concerns the service details of the plaintiff.  He has gone through a number of legal representatives without the history of this being recorded on the Court's file in any way. 

Indeed, only this month pursuant to an order of Judge Griffin have the firm which commenced the proceeding on the 14th of January 2004 pursuant to leave granted by Judge Brabazon to avoid limitations problems, filed a document indicating they no longer act.

The voluminous affidavit of Mr Clayton indicates the history of changes of representation until today when the Court's pleased to see Mr Nguyen instructed by Southside Lawyers of Inala.  The defendant insurer has found itself in the interim dealing with the plaintiff's sister, who has attended conferences and the like.  She asserts she has been finding the pressure of acting in this capacity increasingly difficult to bear.

It is imperative for the protection of the plaintiff and to satisfy the reasonable expectations of the Court that there appear on the file a reliable, usable address for service of the plaintiff who has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court.  The residential address he gave at Mount Ommaney in the claim he now has no connection with whatever.  So, I've taken it on myself this morning to insist on the provision of an address for service which is identified in the order.  The plaintiff will be stuck with that unless he takes advantage of the opportunity the order expressly contemplates to change his service address which, however, must be done by way of a filed document.  Effectively, by instructing counsel who appeared, Southside Lawyers have committed themselves to filing an address for service.

‑‑‑‑‑