Whitley v Ryan; Whitley v Ryan

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Whitley v Ryan & Ors; Whitley v Ryan & Ors [2010] QSC 210

PARTIES:

MARION RUTH WHITLEY
(plaintiff)
v
DARREN MICHAEL RYAN
(first defendant)
VAN TRICHT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
ABN 88 060 865 170
(second defendant)
SUNCORP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED
ACN 075 695 966
(third defendant)
NOMINAL DEFENDANT
(fourth defendant)

RAY DENNIS WHITLEY
(plaintiff)
v
DARREN MICHAEL RYAN
(first defendant)
VAN TRICHT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
ABN 88 060 865 170
(second defendant)
SUNCORP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED
ACN 075 695 966
(third defendant)
NOMINAL DEFENDANT
(fourth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S44 of 2009

S45 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

4 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Toowoomba

HEARING DATE:

31 May; 1 - 4 June 2010

JUDGE:

Fryberg J

ORDERS:

For Matter S44/09:

1.   Judgment for compensatory damages for the plaintiff against the third defendant for $325,000.00 and costs to be assessed.

2.   Judgment for the fourth defendant against the third defendant on the notice claiming contribution given by the third defendant.

3.   Order the third defendant pay the fourth defendant’s costs of:

a.   the plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages against the fourth defendant; and

b.   the third defendant’s notice claiming contribution against the fourth defendant.

4.   Further consideration of the plaintiff’s claim for exemplary damages against the first defendant adjourned to a date to be fixed.

For Matter S45/09:

1.   Judgment for compensatory damages for the plaintiff against the third defendant for $325,000.00 and costs to be assessed.

2.   Judgment for the fourth defendant against the third defendant on the notice claiming contribution given by the third defendant.

3.   Order the third defendant pay the fourth defendant’s costs of:

a.   the plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages against the fourth defendant; and

b.   the third defendant’s notice claiming contribution against the fourth defendant.

4.   Further consideration of the plaintiff’s claim for exemplary damages against the first defendant adjourned to a date to be fixed.

CATCHWORDS:

Torts – Negligence – Road accident cases – Actions for negligence – Evidence – Other matters – Identification evidence – Consideration of conflicting witness evidence where liability is in dispute

Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555; [1992] HCA 13, cited

COUNSEL:

M E Eliadis for the plaintiff
The first defendant appeared on his own behalf
No appearance for the second defendant
S C Williams QC, with T Matthews for the third defendant
R Dickson for the fourth defendant

M E Eliadis for the plaintiff
The first defendant appeared on his own behalf
No appearance for the second defendant
S C Williams QC, with T Matthews for the third defendant
R Dickson for the fourth defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff
The first defendant appeared on his own behalf
No appearance for the second defendant
Bray Lawyers for the third defendant
Broadley Rees Hogan Lawyers for the fourth defendant

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff
The first defendant appeared on his own behalf
No appearance for the second defendant
Bray Lawyers for the third defendant
Broadley Rees Hogan Lawyers for the fourth defendant

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Whitley v Ryan [2010] NSWCA 154 involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Whitley, and the defendants, Ryan and others, arising from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in the accident, alleging negligence on the part of the defendants. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with an appeal subsequently lodged with the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendants were negligent in causing the accident and, if so, the extent of their liability. A critical issue was the identification of the driver of the vehicle responsible for the collision, as conflicting witness statements provided differing accounts of the events leading up to the accident. The court had to weigh the credibility of the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendants.

The Court of Appeal considered the evidence and found that the third defendant was indeed negligent in causing the accident. The court rejected the claims against the first and second defendants, accepting that there was insufficient evidence to establish their liability. The court held that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the reckless driving of the third defendant. The court awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages of $325,000 against the third defendant and ordered the third defendant to pay the costs of the fourth defendant in relation to the plaintiff's claim and the third defendant's notice of claiming contribution. The consideration of the plaintiff's claim for exemplary damages against the first defendant was adjourned for a later date.

In summary, the Court of Appeal dismissed the claims against the first and second defendants, awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiff against the third defendant, and ordered the third defendant to pay the costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders of the court

For Matter S44/09:

1. Judgment for compensatory damages for the plaintiff against the third defendant for $325,000.00 and costs to be assessed.

2. Judgment for the fourth defendant against the third defendant on the notice claiming contribution given by the third defendant.

3. Order the third defendant pay the fourth defendant’s costs of:

a. the plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages against the fourth defendant; and

b. the third defendant’s notice claiming contribution against the fourth defendant.

4. Further consideration of the plaintiff’s claim for exemplary damages against the first defendant adjourned to a date to be fixed.

For Matter S45/09:

1. Judgment for compensatory damages for the plaintiff against the third defendant for $325,000.00 and costs to be assessed.

2. Judgment for the fourth defendant against the third defendant on the notice claiming contribution given by the third defendant.

3. Order the third defendant pay the fourth defendant’s costs of:

a. the plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages against the fourth defendant; and

b. the third defendant’s notice claiming contribution against the fourth defendant.

4. Further consideration of the plaintiff’s claim for exemplary damages against the first defendant adjourned to a date to be fixed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Whitley v Ryan & Ors; Whitley v Ryan & Ors [2010] QSC 210
PARTIES:	MARION RUTH WHITLEY (plaintiff) v DARREN MICHAEL RYAN (first defendant) VAN TRICHT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ABN 88 060 865 170 (second defendant) SUNCORP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 075 695 966 (third defendant) NOMINAL DEFENDANT (fourth defendant) RAY DENNIS WHITLEY (plaintiff) v DARREN MICHAEL RYAN (first defendant) VAN TRICHT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ABN 88 060 865 170 (second defendant) SUNCORP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 075 695 966 (third defendant) NOMINAL DEFENDANT (fourth defendant)
FILE NO/S:	S44 of 2009 S45 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	4 June 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Toowoomba
HEARING DATE:	31 May; 1 - 4 June 2010
JUDGE:	Fryberg J
ORDERS:	For Matter S44/09: 1. Judgment for compensatory damages for the plaintiff against the third defendant for $325,000.00 and costs to be assessed. 2. Judgment for the fourth defendant against the third defendant on the notice claiming contribution given by the third defendant. 3. Order the third defendant pay the fourth defendant’s costs of: a. the plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages against the fourth defendant; and b. the third defendant’s notice claiming contribution against the fourth defendant. 4. Further consideration of the plaintiff’s claim for exemplary damages against the first defendant adjourned to a date to be fixed. For Matter S45/09: 1. Judgment for compensatory damages for the plaintiff against the third defendant for $325,000.00 and costs to be assessed. 2. Judgment for the fourth defendant against the third defendant on the notice claiming contribution given by the third defendant. 3. Order the third defendant pay the fourth defendant’s costs of: a. the plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages against the fourth defendant; and b. the third defendant’s notice claiming contribution against the fourth defendant. 4. Further consideration of the plaintiff’s claim for exemplary damages against the first defendant adjourned to a date to be fixed.
CATCHWORDS:	Torts – Negligence – Road accident cases – Actions for negligence – Evidence – Other matters – Identification evidence – Consideration of conflicting witness evidence where liability is in dispute Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555; [1992] HCA 13, cited
COUNSEL:	M E Eliadis for the plaintiff The first defendant appeared on his own behalf No appearance for the second defendant S C Williams QC, with T Matthews for the third defendant R Dickson for the fourth defendant M E Eliadis for the plaintiff The first defendant appeared on his own behalf No appearance for the second defendant S C Williams QC, with T Matthews for the third defendant R Dickson for the fourth defendant
SOLICITORS:	Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff The first defendant appeared on his own behalf No appearance for the second defendant Bray Lawyers for the third defendant Broadley Rees Hogan Lawyers for the fourth defendant Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff The first defendant appeared on his own behalf No appearance for the second defendant Bray Lawyers for the third defendant Broadley Rees Hogan Lawyers for the fourth defendant