Woolworths Ltd v Graham

[2007] QDC 301

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Woolworths Ltd v Graham [2007] QDC 301

PARTIES:

WOOLWORTHS LTD

(Applicant)

AND

JENNIFER GRAHAM

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD2468/07

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Pre – Proceedings Application under Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 for order for delivery of Part 2 Notice of Claim and Medical report.

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 October 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 September 2007

JUDGE:

Searles DCJ

ORDER:

APPLICATION STRUCK OUT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION; NO ORDER AS TO COSTS

CATCHWORDS:

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND ACT 1967; JURISDICTION TO HEAR PRE- PROCEEDINGS APPLICATIONS UNDER PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS ACT 2002, WHAT IS REQUIRED TO INVOKE COURT’S JURISDICTION.

COUNSEL:

S. A. Sullivan – Applicant

M. E. Pope – Respondent

SOLICITORS:

DLA Phillips Fox – Applicant

Derek & Dwyer Lawyers - Respondent

1. The applicant bought an originating application seeking the following orders:

1.          Pursuant to ss 9(3A) and 35 of the Personal Injuries Proceeding Act 2002 (PIPA) that the respondent deliver the Part 2 Notice of Claim within 14 days of the order of the court.

2.          Pursuant to ss 22(1) and 5(a) and s 35 of the Act that the respondent deliver a copy of Dr Prentice’s report within 14 days of the order of the court.

3.          The respondent pay the applicant’s standard costs of and incidental to the application on the standard basis.

1. At the hearing the applicant’s solicitor advised that the applicant would not be proceeding in relation to paragraphs (1) and (2) of the relief sought given that the respondent had complied with the terms of the orders sought. So, the only issue before the court is the question of costs.

1. Counsel for the respondent resisted an order for costs and sought indemnity costs of the application on two grounds:

(a)         that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain such an application; and

(b)         assuming the court had jurisdiction, the correct District in which the application should have been brought was the District Court, Southport.

1. The definition of court in the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 relevantly provides:

   ‘court’ in relation to a claim means:

   (a)         …

   (b)         if no proceeding based on the claim has been started – a court with jurisdiction to hear the claim.”

The respondent conceded that the application was a proceeding within the above definition which is undoubtedly a correct concession; see Morrison-Gardiner v Car Choice Pty. Ltd.[1]

[1] [2004] QCA 480 at [15] ; [2005] 1 Qd R 378 at 387

1. Under s 68(1) (a) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Act), the District Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine, inter alia:

   “(a)all personal actions, where the amount … damage sought to be recovered does not exceed the monetary limit …”

2. By subsection (2) the monetary limit means $250,000.

1. The Respondent argued that the applicant had not put before the court any material to evidence the claim fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the District Court.

1. Various sections in PIPA contemplate applications to the court before…