Indemnity costs - whether indemnity costs can be ordered in Magistrates Court

In Asset Loan Management v Mamap Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 295, McGill DCJ held that costs may be recovered in Magistrates Courts on the indemnity basis. His Honour was satisfied his conclusion in this respect was not precluded by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Beardmore v Franklins Management Services Pty Ltd [2002] QCA 60

Default judgment - whether irregular - whether court has residual discretion not to set aside default judgment irregularly entered

In CB Richard Ellis (C) Pty Ltd v Wingate Properties Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 399 McGill DCJ examined whether the court now has a discretion to set aside an irregularly entered default judgment.

Unidentified vehicle in multi-vehicle accident - failure to notify Nominal Defendant no bar to proceedings against it

In Kumar v Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2004] QSC 381 Douglas J examined s37 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) in the context of an accident involving multiple insurers when a notice of accident had not been given to the Nominal Defendant

Admissions of law or fact?

In Pollock v Thiess Pty Ltd, McMeekin J considered two applications for the withdrawal of deemed admissions. The judgment provides important guidance on pleadings and deemed admissions under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - obligation to disclose

In Turpin v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, S5216 of 2001), Mullins J, 17.10.2001) the plaintiff applied for a declaration that the respondent disclose pursuant to s47 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 copies of three statements referred to in a loss assessor's investigation report as "attached". The issue involved determination of whether the statements must be disclosed under s48(2) even though protected by legal professional privilege. The Court applied the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in James v Workcover Queensland.

UCPR r389(2) - leave to proceed required if no step taken for two years

In Smiley v Watson [2001] QCA 269 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered whether a notice of non-party disclosure, or the transfer of proceedings from one court to another was a 'step' in the proceeding for the purpose of r389 of the UCPR.

Right to trial by jury - construction of Uniform Civil Procedure r474

In Smit v Chan [2001] QSC 493 (Supreme Court of Queensland, S1233 of 1995, Mullins J, 21.12.2001) the sixth defendant successfully obtained an order that a complex medical negligence action be tried without a jury. This was the first application to be decided under r474 of UCPR 1999, and the decision is a significant precedent for defendants in similar cases who want to avoid the unpredictability of outcome and the inflated damages awards sometimes associated with jury trials.

Personal injury in motor accident in NSW - procedural requirements under Motor Accidents Insurance Act 1988 (NSW)

In Hooper v Robinson [2002] QDC 080 (District Court of Queensland, D 4841 of 2001, McGill DCJ, 19.4.2002) McGill DCJ considered the application of the decision in John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson [2000] 203 CLR 503 to notice requirements such as in s42 of NSW Motor Accident Insurance Act 1988 and concluded such provisions are now substantive.

Costs - solicitor's retainer on 'no win, no fee' basis - meaning of 'win' - solicitor not entitled to recover excess of costs over amount paid on settlement - no consideration for variation of oral retainer.

In Baker Johnson Lawyers v Jorgensen [2002] QDC 205 McGill DCJ considered the meaning of a 'no win, no fee' retainer and concluded that, in the absence of qualification by agreement, solicitors retained on that basis were not entitled to recover costs exceeding the amount of any judgment or settlement.

Limitation of actions - medical negligence

In Christensen v Salter [2002] QDC 082 the District Court of Queensland considered some issues on the limitation period applying to claims arising out of a failed sterilisation procedure

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - whether vehicle in question a vehicle "for which registration is required"

In Gideona v Nominal Defendant [2005] QCA 261, the Queensland Court of Appeal reconsidered the question of what is the material time for determining whether registration of a motor vehicle is required. The Court declined to follow the decision in Kelly v Alford [1988] 1 Qd R 404; deciding that the material time was the time when the accident occurred.

Improper coaching of witnesses costs defendant its judgment

In its judgment on April 11, 2005, in Day v Perisher Blue Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 110, the NSW Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the District Court in favour of the defendant. The main ground for the decision of the Court of Appeal related to the conduct of the defendant's solicitors and its witnesses prior to trial. The Court subsequently referred the matter to the Legal Services Commissioner.

UCPR r548 - requirement for report or proof of evidence intended to be relied on at trial

In Oates v Cootes Tanker Service Pty Ltd [2005] QSC 213, Fryberg J considered some interesting questions of construction in relation to the rule requiring the plaintiff to provide a statement of loss and damage in personal injuries proceedings (UCPR r 548) and the rule in relation to the giving of expert evidence (UCPR r427)

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s45 - whether obligation to co-operate may authorise order requiring commencement of proceedings by minor prior to expiration of limitation period

In Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd v McPaul; Council of the City of Gold Coast v McPaul [2005] QSC 278 the applicant insurer sought an order requiring a claimant who had been injured in a motor vehicle accident some years earlier when he was five years old to commence a proceeding to determine the question of the applicant's liability to him. The applicant's interest in seeking the order was to avoid the prejudice which could follow from further delay, particularly delay until the respondent became obliged to commence proceedings to avoid a limitations bar.

Application to set aside statutory demand

In C & E Pty Ltd v Corrigan [2006] QCA 47, the Queensland Court of Appeal considered whether r103 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules applied to the service of an application to set aside a statutory demand under s459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The decision provides analysis and clarification of an issue that has clearly been one of some uncertainty.