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.

Practice and procedure : solicitors' liens for costs

In Patterson v Cohen [2005] NSWSC 635 Hamilton J examined the authorities in relation to what are commonly called 'fruits of litigation' liens. The judgment provides a very useful summary of the principles which apply.

Practice and procedure : Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 s56

In Amos v Brisbane City Council [2005] QCA 433 the Queensland Court of Appeal was called upon to determine the scope of s56 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002. The decision makes it clear that the section does not provide a complete code governing awards of damages and does not deprive the court of power to award costs against a plaintiff who fails to succeed on liability.

Supreme Court Act 1995 s48 - Interest on judgment for damages for personal injuries

The case of Flynn v The Maryborough Sugar Factory Limited [2003] QDC 446 the plaintiff had been awarded damages for personal injuries and there was a charge on those damages under a Commonwealth statute, with a provision in the statute that damages could not be satisfied until the Commonwealth had been paid. The Court considered the point of considerable practical significance of whether interest accrued on the judgment under s48 of the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) before the defendant had obtained clearances under the Commonwealth legislation.

Disclosure of documents : production for inspection

In Altmann v Ioff of Victoria Friendly Society [2004] QDC 005 McGill DCJ considered the practical question in relation to disclosure of documents as to whether a party disclosing bundles of documents under UCPR r 217 was obliged to number or otherwise individually identify the documents

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - reasonable excuse for delay in giving notice under s37

The decisions in Perdis v The Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 555, Miller v the Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 558 and Piper v the Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 557 were handed down contemporaneously by the Queensland Court of Appeal on December 15 2003. They consider important issues as to the construction of key provisions of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - compulsory conferences and offers to settle

In Lindsay v Aumaali [2004] QDC 028 the Court considered whether it could, in effect, postpone the requirement for a compulsory conference under s51A of the Moror Accident insurance Act 1994 (Qld) or the exchange of final offers under s51C of the Act until after the start of proceedings.

Interrogatories - Who may be interrogated

In Pacific Century Production Pty Ltd v Netafirm Australia Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 043 the court was asked for the first time to consider the application of rule 229(1)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (the UCPR)

Caveats - Limited extensions effectively unlimited

The decision of Young J in McCosker v Lovitt (1995) 12 BCL 146 paces an interpretation upon s 74J of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) likely to surprise the unwary respondent to proceedings in New South Wales involving an application for an order to extend a caveat. Further, the similarity in critical respects between s74J and the legislation relating to lapse and extension of caveats in some jurisdictions when contrasted with other lapse provisions suggests that a court order extending a caveat for a specified period only may have very different consequences in different jurisdictions.

The caveat in Queensland : getting it off!

This article critically analyses the provisions by which a caveat against dealings may be cleared from a land title in Queensland, namely ss 126, 127 and 128 of the Land Title Act 1994(Qld). It includes a comparison of the current provisions with the pre-existing law and provides a comprehensive guide as to the circumstances in which, and the manner by which, the current provisions may be utilised to clear caveats from land titles in Queensland.