Vlietstra v Ranger & Anor - [2005] NTSC 6

[Back to Main List] [Back to NTSC 2005 List] Vlietstra v Range & Anor [2005] NTSC 6

PARTIES: MARK VLIETSTRA

ANDREW MARK RANGER
FAI ALLIANZ LIMITED

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: No 7 of 2004 (20401205)

DELIVERED: 18 February 2005

HEARING DATES: 17 February 2005

JUDGMENT OF: SOUTHWOOD J

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE

R47.4 Supreme Court Rules – separate trial of preliminary issue – resident of the Territory – residence – negligence – statement of engagement – utility, economy and fairness – expense and inconvenience

Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act (NT) s 4, s 4(1), s 5; Motor Vehicle Accident Insurance Act (QLD)

Buric v Transfield PBM Pty Ltd (1992) 112 FLR 189; Carlo Nobili SpA Rubinetterie v Militaire Nominees Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 47; Dunstan v Simmie & Co Pty Ltd [1978] VR 669; Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board [2001] 206 CLR 1; referred to

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: N. Christrup
Defendant: C. Ford

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Priestleys
Defendant: Cridlands

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID Number: SOU 0501
Number of pages: 11

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Vlietstra v Ranger & Anor [2005] NTSC 6
No. 7 of 2004 (20401205)

BETWEEN:

MARK VLIETSTRA
Plaintiff

AND:

ANDREW MARK RANGER
First Defendant
FAI ALLIANZ LIMITED
Second Defendant

CORAM: SOUTHWOOD J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 18 February 2005)

Introduction
[1] This is an interlocutory application made by Summons filed by the First and Second Defendants on 5 January 2005. The question for determination by the Court is whether pursuant to r 47.04 of the Supreme Court Rules there should be a separate trial of the issue of the Plaintiff’s residency which is raised by par 5 of the Defence of the First and Second Defendants.
[2] The application is opposed by the Plaintiff.
[3] The following matters are pleaded in par 5 of the Defence of the First and Second Defendants:
“At all material times:
(a) The place of the incident referred to in par 3 of the Statement of Claim was within the borders of the Northern Territory of Australia;
(b) In the premises the law of the Northern Territory applies to the Plaintiff’s right of action to pursue damages for any negligence the Plaintiff may prove arising from the incident referred to in par 3 of the Statement of Claim;
(c) The Plaintiff’s right of action and the Plaintiff’s entitlement to damages is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 (NT) (as amended) (hereinafter called in this defence “the Northern Territory Act”);
(d) The Plaintiff was a “resident of the Territory” within the meaning of that term as defined in s 4 of the Northern Territory Act
Particulars
(i) Prior to the 14 January 2001 the Plaintiff had entered the Northern Territory to take up residence pursuant to a written agreement for his employment;
(ii) The…

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 Vlietstra v Ranger & Anor

Details

AGLC: Vlietstra v Ranger & Anor [2005] NTSC 006
Case: [2005] NTSC 6
Decision Date: 18 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory heard an interlocutory application in the case of Vlietstra v Ranger & Anor, concerning a motor vehicle accident that occurred in the Territory on 14 January 2001. The plaintiff, Mark Vlietstra, sued the driver, Andrew Mark Ranger, and his insurer, FAI Allianz Limited, for injuries sustained in the accident. The defendants argued that Vlietstra was a resident of the Territory at the time of the accident and, as such, was not entitled to sue them for damages under the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 (NT). They sought a separate trial of the issue of Vlietstra's residency. Vlietstra opposed the application.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the issue of Vlietstra's residency should be tried separately and, if so, whether such a trial would be in the interests of justice. The court considered the criteria for ordering a separate trial of issues, including the potential for the trial to end the litigation, save expense and inconvenience, and advance the expedition of the determination of matters before the court. The court also noted that a separate trial may lead to further appeals, which could prolong the litigation.

The court found that the issue of Vlietstra's residency involved mixed questions of fact and law and that a separate trial would not necessarily save time or expense. The court further determined that ordering a separate trial would fragment and delay the proceedings and hinder settlement negotiations. Additionally, the resolution of the residency issue would not assist in the resolution of the remaining issues should Vlietstra be successful on the issue.

The court dismissed the defendants' application for a separate trial of the issue of Vlietstra's residency, stating that the plaintiff should be entitled to the benefit of the law as it was currently declared by the court. The court would hear the parties regarding the costs of the application.

Orders