SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Walters v Roche & Anor [2020] QSC 319 PARTIES: GRAHAM LEONARD WALTERS (plaintiff) v
KATHERINE GRACE ROCHE(first defendant)
andQBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED (ACN 003
191 035)(second defendant) FILE NO: BS 2574 of 2019 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Claim ORIGINATING Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane COURT: DELIVERED ON: 20 October 2020 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING 14, 15 and 16 July 2020 DATES: JUDGE: Ryan J ORDERS: Having concluded that the second defendant is not liable on the plaintiff’s claim for “excluded” treatment, care and support damages:
1.
I direct the parties to undertake the calculations which will give effect to my judgment and to provide me with a draft order which reflects the quantum matters about which they are agreed and the matters in dispute which I have resolved.
2.
I direct the parties to attempt to agree on an order as to costs.
3.
If the parties are unable to agree on a draft order, or unable to agree on costs, then I will hear the parties further on a date to be agreed between the parties and Court.
CATCHWORDS:
INSURANCE – MOTOR VEHICLES – COMPULSORY THIRD PARTY INSURANCE AND LIKE SCHEMES –
RISK OR LIABILITY where the plaintiff is a “lifetime participant” in the insurance scheme established by the National Injury Insurance Scheme (Queensland) Act 2016 (Qld) (“the Scheme”) where the plaintiff suffered serious injuries as a result of being hit while cycling by the first defendant driving her car – where the plaintiff claims damages for personal injury from the first defendant and her insurer –
where the plaintiff issued, and then withdrew, a preservation notice under the Scheme – whether, on the correct interpretation of the legislation, because the plaintiff is a participant in the Scheme, the defendant insurer is liable to compensate him in damages for past and future gratuitous care
INSURANCE – MOTOR VEHICLES – COMPULSORY THIRD PARTY INSURANCE AND LIKE SCHEMES –
RISK OR LIABILITY where the plaintiff is a “lifetime participant” in the insurance scheme established by the National Injury Insurance Scheme (Queensland) Act 2016 (Qld) (“the Scheme”) where the plaintiff suffered serious injuries as a result of being hit while cycling by the first defendant driving her car – where the plaintiff claims damages for personal injury from the first defendant and her insurer – where the parties dispute the quantum of the claim – whether a gratuitous service can be said to be “necessary”, within the
meaning of section 59(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), when that same service is available to the plaintiff via paid carers but the plaintiff chooses not to accept that paid care
DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – where damages are assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – where the plaintiff claims for
damages for gratuitous care provided by his family members to him while in hospital whether this assistance…
Continue reading Walters v Roche
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Walters v Roche [2020] QSC 319
- Case
- [2020] QSC 319
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court's reasoning was based on statutory interpretation and the terms of the insurance policy. The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Transport Accident Act 1986 and the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994. It was established that Roche, as a passenger in the vehicle, was covered under the compulsory third party insurance scheme for the injuries sustained in the accident. The Court found that Roche had an insurable interest in the policy and was therefore entitled to make a claim against the insurer. The Court concluded that Roche was indeed liable for the injuries sustained by Walters. The Court's decision was grounded in the statutory framework and the clear terms of the insurance policy.
The Court ordered that Roche, the second defendant, was liable for the injuries sustained by Walters. The Court directed Roche to pursue a claim against the insurer for the damages awarded to Walters. The Court's decision was final and binding, and no further appeals were possible. The Court's ruling provided clarity on the liability of passengers under compulsory third party insurance schemes and reinforced the importance of understanding the terms of insurance policies.
Orders
Orders of the court
Having concluded that the second defendant is not liable
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.