Walker v Symonds - [2014] QCA 148

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Walker v Symonds & Anor [2014] QCA 148

PARTIES:

TANYA JANE WALKER
(applicant/appellant)
v
MICHAEL SYMONDS
(first respondent)
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
ABN 15 000 122 850
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 12312 of 2013
DC No 1425 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes JA and Atkinson and Dalton JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Leave is granted to appeal.1.

The appeal is allowed.2.

The judgment given below is set aside.3.

The proceeding is remitted to the District Court for determination of all issues of liability and quantum.4.

The parties must provide to the Registrar written submissions as to costs within two weeks of the delivery of this judgment.5.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – LIABILITY OF DRIVERS OF VEHICLES – FAILURE TO LOOK OUT – PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS – where the appellant seeks leave to appeal a judgment dismissing her claim for personal injuries caused when she came into collision with a car – where the only witnesses, the appellant and the respondent, gave conflicting accounts of the collision – where the trial judge accepted the respondent’s version of events – whether the primary judge gave proper reasons supporting the findings of fact made – whether a new trial should be ordered

Tep v ATS Australasian Technical Services Pty Ltd[2013] QCA 180, cited

COUNSEL:

M E Eliadis for the applicant
S C Williams QC, with M Liddy, for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the applicant
Sciaccas Lawyers & Consultants for the respondents

HOLMES JA & ATKINSON J: We agree with the orders proposed by Dalton J and with her Honour's reasons for setting aside the judgment below. We would add that in our view the trial judge's finding, made on the basis of the respondent's version of events, that the latter was not liable to any extent for the accident was not tenable. On the respondent’s own evidence he failed to keep a proper lookout; had he done so he would have seen that the appellant might well be about to cross his path, and could have taken steps to avoid her. However any determination of liability and quantum must now depend on findings of fact properly made by a trial judge on the whole of evidence before that judge.

DALTON J: The appellant seeks leave to appeal a judgment in the District Court dismissing her claim for personal injuries caused when she came into collision with a car. In my opinion leave ought to be given to appeal. In my view the judgment below does not contain proper reasons supporting the findings of fact made and on my analysis of the evidence below, there is sufficient doubt as to the judge’s findings that the respondent…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Walker v Symonds and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] QCA 148
Decision Date: 20 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Walker v Symonds, the appellant sought to appeal a decision dismissing her claim for personal injuries resulting from a collision with a car. The appellant and the respondent, the driver of the car, provided conflicting accounts of the incident, leading to a determination in the respondent's favour by the trial judge. The core issues before the court were whether the primary judge provided adequate reasoning for the factual findings and if a new trial should be ordered due to the discrepancies in the testimonies.

The court delved into the necessity for a trial judge to furnish clear and comprehensive reasons for their findings when the evidence is contentious. It was determined that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient to substantiate the findings of fact, especially given the conflicting testimonies. The court held that the trial judge's acceptance of the respondent's version without proper justification warranted a new trial to reassess the liability and damages.

The appellate court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous judgment. The matter was remitted to the District Court for a fresh determination of both liability and quantum. The parties were instructed to submit written submissions on costs to the Registrar within two weeks of the judgment. This decision underscores the importance of detailed reasoning in cases with conflicting testimonies and highlights the necessity for thorough justification of factual findings in such scenarios.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave is granted to appeal.1.

The appeal is allowed.2.

The judgment given below is set aside.3.

The proceeding is remitted to the District Court for determination of all issues of liability and quantum.4.

The parties must provide to the Registrar written submissions as to costs within two weeks of the delivery of this judgment.5.

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.

CITATION:	Walker v Symonds & Anor [2014] QCA 148
PARTIES:	TANYA JANE WALKER (applicant/appellant) v MICHAEL SYMONDS (first respondent) ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED ABN 15 000 122 850 (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 12312 of 2013 DC No 1425 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 June 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 May 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes JA and Atkinson and Dalton JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Leave is granted to appeal.1. The appeal is allowed.2. The judgment given below is set aside.3. The proceeding is remitted to the District Court for determination of all issues of liability and quantum.4. The parties must provide to the Registrar written submissions as to costs within two weeks of the delivery of this judgment.5.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – LIABILITY OF DRIVERS OF VEHICLES – FAILURE TO LOOK OUT – PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS – where the appellant seeks leave to appeal a judgment dismissing her claim for personal injuries caused when she came into collision with a car – where the only witnesses, the appellant and the respondent, gave conflicting accounts of the collision – where the trial judge accepted the respondent’s version of events – whether the primary judge gave proper reasons supporting the findings of fact made – whether a new trial should be ordered Tep v ATS Australasian Technical Services Pty Ltd[2013] QCA 180, cited
COUNSEL:	M E Eliadis for the applicant S C Williams QC, with M Liddy, for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Shine Lawyers for the applicant Sciaccas Lawyers & Consultants for the respondents