Walker-Eyre v Emirates

Case [2012] QDC 364


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Walker-Eyre v Emirates [2012] QDC 364

PARTIES:

AILSA WALKER-EYRE
(plaintiff)

v

EMIRATES
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D 4468/2011

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 October 2012

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Order that the following question be decided separately from other questions in the proceeding and before the trial, pursuant to UCPR r 483: “Was the plaintiff required to comply with the requirements of pt 1 of ch 2 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 prior to commencing this proceeding?”

Question answered: No.

CATCHWORDS:

PERSONAL INJURY – Aircraft – strict liability under Commonwealth statute – whether PIPA applied – whether Commonwealth statute otherwise provides.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 79.

Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability)Act 1959 (Cth) ss 9B, 9E, Schedule 1A articles 17, 21, 33, 35.

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 ss 7, 9.

Agtrack (NT) Pty Ltd v Hatfield (2005) 223 CLR 251 – followed.
Airlines of NSWPty Ltd v New South Wales (1964) 113 CLR 1 – considered.
Airlink Pty Ltd v Pattison (2005) 223 CLR 283 – cited.
Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wardley (1980) 142 CLR 237 – cited.
ASIC v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd (2001) 204 CLR 559 – cited.

Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 224 – cited.

Berowra Holdings Pty Ltd v Gordon (2006) 225 CLR 364 – cited.
British American Tobacco Australia Ltd v Western Australia (2003) 186 CLR 541 – considered.
Commercial Radio Coffs Harbour Ltd v Fuller (1986) 161 CLR 47 – considered.
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Owens (No 2) (1953) 88 CLR 168 – cited.
Hamling v Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd   [2007] 1 Qd R 315 – cited.

Kruger v The Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1 – cited.

Macleodv ASIC (2002) 211 CLR 287 – applied.
Martins v Stokes (2012) 260 FLR 134; [2012] QCA 36 – distinguished.
Northern Territory v GPAO (1999) 196 CLR 553 – considered.

Pederson v Young (1964) 110 CLR 162 – cited.

Phipps v Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Ltd [2007] 2 Qd R 555 – considered.
Ramsay v McElroy [2004] 1 Qd R 667 – cited.

COUNSEL:

R J Lynch for the plaintiff

T W Quinn for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff

Hemming & Hart for the defendant

  1. The question that arises in this case is whether the plaintiff’s claim for damages under the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability)Act 1959 (Cth) (“the Act”) is subject to the provisions dealing with pre-litigation procedures contained in the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (“PIPA”). On 7 November 2011 the plaintiff filed a claim and statement of claim in this court, claiming damages for personal injuries from the defendant under the Act. It is common ground that the plaintiff had not complied with the requirements of PIPA before doing so. The defendant submitted that as a result the proceeding should be…

Continue reading Walker-Eyre v Emirates

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Walker-Eyre v Emirates [2012] QDC 364
Case
[2012] QDC 364
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Walker-Eyre v Emirates arose from an incident involving a passenger, Ms Walker-Eyre, who sustained injuries during her flight on an Emirates aircraft. The dispute centred around the applicability of strict liability under a Commonwealth statute and whether the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (PIPA) applied. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining these issues.

The central legal issues were whether the strict liability provisions under the Commonwealth statute applied to this situation and, if so, whether PIPA was applicable to this case. The court needed to decide if the statutory provisions provided an exclusive remedy, thereby precluding PIPA from applying. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff was required to comply with the pre-action requirements of PIPA before initiating the proceeding.

The court held that the strict liability provisions under the Commonwealth statute did apply, but PIPA was not precluded from applying as it did not provide an exclusive remedy. Consequently, the plaintiff was not required to comply with the pre-action requirements of PIPA before commencing the proceeding. The court ordered that the specific question about PIPA's applicability be decided separately and before the trial. The court ruled that the plaintiff did not need to comply with PIPA's requirements prior to initiating this proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that the following question be decided separately from other questions in the proceeding and before the trial, pursuant to UCPR r 483: “Was the plaintiff required to comply with the requirements of pt 1 of ch 2 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 prior to commencing this proceeding?”

Question answered: No.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.