| AIG
Australia Ltd v Jaques (No 2) (VSCA) - costs - indemnity
costs sought in respect of appeal on basis of Calderbank offer made at trial -
application refused
|
| Mules
v Ferguson (QCA) - medical negligence - patient suffered injuries
from meningitis - doctor liable - patient awarded damages of $6.7 million
|
| Dipic
v Bunning (QCA) - summary dismissal - limitations - application for
leave to appeal to be dismissed if failure to comply with security for costs
order
|
| Brisbane
City Council v Newton (QCA) - administrative law - application
for leave to appeal - application to strike out leave application - adjournment
|
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
AIG Australia Ltd v Jaques
(No 2)
[2015] VSCA 3
Court
of Appeal of Victoria
Warren
CJ & Neave JA
Costs
- Court of Appeal dismissed appellant’s appeal - respondent sought costs on
indemnity basis - respondent relied on fact that trial judge had awarded indemnity
costs on basis of Calderbank offer made prior to trial - respondent submitted
that appeal costs should also be awarded on indemnity basis to ensure benefits
he obtained as result of trial judge’s order not undermined by additional costs
incurred in meeting appeal - respondent also submitted degree of unreasonableness
of appellant’s rejection of offer to compromise supported application - held:
offers of compromise made pursuant to Pt2 O26 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) were confined
to compromise of claim at trial - Rules now provided for offers of compromise
to be made to compromise appeal pursuant to r26.12 - not suggested such offer
made by respondent - evidence of unreasonableness insufficient to warrant
departing from usual order - appellant to pay respondent’s costs on standard
basis.
AIG
Australia Ltd
|
Mules v Ferguson [2015] QCA 5
Court
of Appeal of Queensland
M
McMurdo P; Applegarth & Boddice JJ
Medical
negligence - appellant suffered injuries and disabilities after contracting
meningitis - appellant sued doctor for failure to undertake proper examination
or make proper enquires as to symptoms - primary judge assessed damages at $6.7
million but dismissed appellant’s claim - appellant contended judge erred in
finding doctor’s breach of care did not cause her injuries and in finding doctor
had a defence under s22 Civil Liability
Act 2003 (Qld) - held (by majority): trial judge’s findings that respondent
breached duty of care open on evidence - trial judge’s findings as to likely
outcome of consultations had respondent not breached duty against weight of
evidence - no evidence sufficient to satisfy respondent’s onus in respect of s22
- appeal allowed - judgment for appellant for $6.7 million.
Mules
|
Dipic v Bunning [2014] QCA 338
Court
of Appeal of Queensland
Holmes
JA
Summary
judgment - limitations - security for costs - applicant filed statement of
claim in relation to alleged agreement that he and wife would give respondents money
to help them buy house or land - respondents obtained summary judgment on basis
statement of claim out of time - applicant sought to appeal - primary judge
ordered applicant to pay security for costs - respondents sought to have
application for leave to appeal dismissed - applicant sought to have order for
security set aside or varied so that security did not have to be provided until
police investigation of claims against respondents completed - held: applicant
had limited prospects of success on appeal - no basis to vary or set aside
order for security for costs - Court not prepared to dismiss application for
leave to appeal out of hand - unless applicant complied with order for security
for costs by certain date, application for leave would be deemed to be
dismissed with costs.
Dipic
|
Brisbane City Council v
Newton
[2014] QCA 337
Court
of Appeal of Queensland
Holmes
JA
Administrative
law - Appeal Division of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal refused
applicant’s application for leave to appeal from decision concerning his
tenancy of Council property - applicant sought leave to appeal on ground of
QCAT’s lack of jurisdiction - Council sought order striking out application for
leave - held: applicant had asserted Appeal Tribunal did not consider evidence or
appellant’s arguments which were arguably capable of being questions of law as
to procedural fairness - applicant had also raised other matters which were
capable of amounting to questions of law - it could not be said application not
properly instituted - Court did not propose to resolve arguments - there were
practical reasons against embarking as single Judge on determination of application
against Court’s usual practice - applications adjourned.
Brisbane
City Council
|
