obiter | ByLawyers News and Updates

Personal Injury QLD

by

The By Lawyers Personal Injury QLD publication has been reviewed, including the addition of a recent Supreme Court case relating to the extension of limitation periods.

Limitation periods are a critical consideration for practitioners advising and representing clients in personal injury claims. Strict limitation and notice periods apply. Extensions are possible under s 59 Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, but good reasons for delay must be shown and the Court does not exercise its discretion to extend limitation periods lightly. Section 59 also applies to any extension of the limitation period that is granted under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.

The issues relating to such an application were examined recently in Faram v Hensec Pty Limited [2020] QSC 327. The application to extend the limitation period in that case was refused where the applicant had failed to comply with the necessary pre-action procedures.

The By Lawyers Personal Injury QLD commentary deals in detail with limitation periods and pre-action procedures.

This review has also seen the commentary updated and revised for enhanced searchability.

Related By Lawyers guides for Queensland litigation include Motor Vehicle Accidents, Workers Compensation, District Court, Supreme Court and 101 Subpoena Answers.

New subpoena case – ACT

by

A new subpoena case has been added to the By Lawyers reference manual 101 Subpoena Answers.

In Instyle Estate Agents Guhgahlin Pty Ltd v Hambrook [2020] ACTSC (26 October 2020) the court set aside a number of subpoenas in a civil matter, following Federal, NSW and previous ACT authorities.

The decision is particularly useful because it canvasses the plaintiffs’ four separate grounds for objection to the subpoenas, namely:

  • that they lacked a legitimate forensic purpose;
  • that they in effect sought discovery from non-parties, or alternatively, the terms of the subpoenas were impermissibly wide so as to constitute ‘fishing’;
  • that the terms of the schedules to each subpoena were so wide as to be oppressive; and
  • that the issuing party failed to pay both conduct money and money for the reasonable expenses of production.

McWilliam AsJ discussed and determined the court’s power and the applicable legal principles in respect of each of those grounds of objection.

This new subpoena case augments the many cases from all Australian jurisdictions to which links are provided in this helpful publication publication. It will particularly assist ACT practitioners in understanding and applying the law on subpoena objections.

101 Subpoena Answers is available in the Reference Materials folder on the matter plan in every By Lawyers litigation publication.

District Court litigation – NSW

by

The By Lawyers District Court Litigation publication has been revised following the Court’s re-issue of Practice Note DC (Civil) No. 1. The revised practice note commenced on 31 August 2020.

The revision of this critical practice note also provided the opportunity for an author review of the District Court litigation publication, with resulting enhancement.

Both the Acting for the Defendant – District Court Civil (NSW) and Acting for the Plaintiff – District Court Civil (NSW) Guides have been reviewed. The matter plan is re-ordered and the procedural requirements of the practice note are further emphasised.

In addition, a new precedent Letter to client enclosing Practice Note DC (Civil) No. 1, has been added to each guide. The new precedent assists practitioners in complying with the court’s disclosure requirements. 

This review and the addition of the new precedent is part of By Lawyers continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

Motor vehicle accidents – NSW

by

The statutory scheme for motor vehicle accidents in NSW varies depending upon whether the accident occurred before or after 1 December 2017. The Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 applies to accidents before that date. The Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 applies to accidents that occurred after that date.

A new Motor Accidents Compensation Regulation 2020 commenced on 1 September 2020. It repeals and replaces the Motor Accidents Compensation Regulation 2015. These regulations are under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 – that is, they relate to claims for motor vehicle accidents which occurred BEFORE 1 December 2017.

By Lawyers Motor vehicle accidents publication has two separate guides to assist practitioners when acting for clients injured in motor accidents under both statutory schemes, before and after 1 December 2017.

The 2020 regulation

The explanatory memorandum for the new 2020 regulation notes:

The object of this Regulation is to remake, with some changes, the Motor Accidents Compensation Regulation 2015, which is repealed on 1 September 2020 by section 10(2) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989. The Regulation provides for the following matters—

(a) the maximum costs for legal services provided in connection with claims relating to motor accidents covered by the compulsory third-party insurance scheme under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999,

(b) the circumstances in which a legal practitioner and party may contract out of those maximum costs for legal services (to the extent they are payable on a practitioner and client basis),

(c) the maximum fees for medico-legal services and expert evidence provided in respect of claims,

(d) the assessment of claims by claims assessors,

(e) other matters relating to costs including what is to occur if a claimant fails to attend a medical assessment, the rate of certain travel expenses and providing for GST to be taken into account,  

(f) the maximum amounts payable by insurers for certain treatment provided to claimants,

(g) the classes of motor vehicles that are taken to be subject to an unregistered vehicle permit for the purposes of section 10A (Treatment of certain vehicles for purposes of third-party policy) of the Act,

(h) the time in which an insurer must pay an assessed amount of damages to a claimant,

(i) prescribing the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority as an authority to which protected information may be divulged for the purposes of section 217 (Secrecy of information obtained from or relating to insurers or proposed insurers and other persons) of the Act,

 (j) providing for information about settlement amounts, deductions and amounts paid to claimants to be disclosed to the State Insurance Regulatory Authority by legal practitioners,

 (k) creating a duty for legal practitioners not to give or receive fees or other consideration in respect of referrals in relation to claims,

 (l) savings and transitional matters.

Publication updates

The changes introduced by the 2020 version of the regulations are not substantial. The most significant is the provision, with some exceptions, for the automatic adjustment for inflation of the maximum costs for legal services and maximum fees for medico-legal services.

The By Lawyers Motor Vehicle Accidents – Accidents prior to 1 December 2017 Guide has been updated accordingly.

Personal injury – QLD

by

A useful recent case has been added to the commentary in the By Lawyers Personal injury – QLD publication.

In Folwell v Mayer [2020] QSC 162 the court allowed the applicant an extension of time. The circumstances were that the applicant had issued a complying notice of claim under Part 1 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) within the limitation period, but had not otherwise completed the pre-litigation procedures required under the Act and was out of time to commence proceedings.

The applicant applied under s 59 of the Act for leave to commence proceedings even though the limitation period had expired.

The court reviewed the legislation and the cases on such applications, in some detail.

The factual circumstances were also examined closely, especially the chronology of the steps taken in relation to the matter by the applicant and her solicitors. These factual details proved to be determinative, as is usually the case in such applications.

The court found that the applicant herself had been less than pro-active in pursuing her claim, but further found that ‘… on the material before the court, the failure to conscientiously comply with the legislative requirements… rests predominantly with the applicant’s solicitor, rather than the applicant herself.’

The court also noted that ‘…the respondent does not identify any specific prejudice it will suffer if the application is granted.’

In the circumstances, notwithstanding the delay, the court determined that the applicant had an arguable claim and there could still be a fair trial. Accordingly the court ruled that ‘…the interests of justice favour exercising the discretion to grant the application to alter the limitation period under s 59’.

The case has been added to the commentary in Personal injury – QLD under Limitation periods.

Re-issued practice notes – NSW

by

The Supreme Court has re-issued practice notes in relation to procedure in the Common Law division for some of the court’s specialist lists. The additions and amendments to these Practice Notes mainly clarify or enhance aspects of case management by the court.

The Re-issued Practice Notes are as follows:

SC CL 7 – Professional Negligence List

SC CL 6 – Possession List

SC CL 4 – Defamation List

SC CL 3 – Administrative & Industrial Law List

There are also corresponding and additional minor amendments to SC CL 1 General regarding case management in the Common Law Division generally.

All these amended practice notes commenced from 25 May 2020, except PN CL 7 which will commence 1 June 2020.

The By Lawyers Supreme Court Common Law – Acting for the plaintiff and Acting for the Defendant guides contain numerous relevant links to these and other practice notes. The commentaries and links in these guides have been updated accordingly.

Subpoena objections – FED

by

New cases on subpoena objections in the Federal jurisdiction have been added to the By Lawyers reference guide 101 Subpoena Answers.

In Kitchen v Director of Professional Services Review under s 83 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) (No 3) [2020] FCA 634 the Federal Court affirmed McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1233 and also Tamawood Ltd v Habitare Developments Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 364 to the effect that:

  • a request for a subpoena cannot be used to disguise an application for discovery of documents, or as an alternative to an application for further and better discovery;
  • documents for production must be identified with reasonable particularity;
  • the material sought must have an adjectival relevance, that is, an apparent relevance to the issues in the principal proceedings; there must be a legitimate forensic purpose for the production of documents;
  • a mere ‘fishing’ exercise can never justify the issue of subpoenas;
  • a wide-ranging subpoena seeking documents of doubtful relevance at great inconvenience to, or that risk compromising the commercial privacy of, a third party, may not readily attract the grant of leave; and
  • the issue of the subpoena must not, in all the circumstances, be oppressive in terms of its impact on the recipient.

101 Subpoena Answers is available in all By Lawyers litigation guides. It can assist practitioners with issuing and responding to subpoenas in all jurisdictions including the various grounds for subpoena objections.

Uniform Civil Rules – SA

by

The much heralded Uniform Civil Court Rules 2020 commenced in South Australia on 18 May 2020. CourtSA’s new electronic registry system commenced on the same day.

The new rules apply to proceedings commenced and steps taken in all SA civil proceedings on or after 18 May. They are to be cited at the Uniform Civil Rules 2020.

All By Lawyers SA litigation guides have been updated to reflect the new rules and procedures.

Significant amendments

The Uniform Civil Rules 2020 bring many changes.

Universal rules as to pleadings apply across all three courts and are found in Part 7 of the Rules, subject to exceptions for ‘minor civil actions’. There are specific rules for specific types of actions, for example, personal injury. There are some specific rules only applicable to the Magistrates Court.

Description of parties

One of the most significant changes is the terminology used to describe the parties. Under the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 a ‘plaintiff’ is now an ‘applicant’, a ‘defendant’ is now a ‘respondent’ and an ‘intervenor’ is now an ‘interested party’. These terms apply to all civil matters in all SA courts. By Lawyers commentary and precedents, including the titles of precedents, have been amended accordingly.

Pre-action requirements

Some of the major changes relate to pre-action requirements. The rules now specify:

  • how documents are to be served;
  • what is to be included in a pre-action claim, including a cost estimate if the matter were to proceed to trial;
  • a requirement for a pre-action response that includes a cost estimate;
  • a further response from the proposed applicant if a cross claim is indicated;
  • a pre-action third party notice and response if a third party is to be added;
  • a requirement for a pre-action negotiation meeting and subsequent report if the matter does not resolve.

There are serious procedural and costs implications for non-compliance with pre-action requirements.

Cross claims and set offs

There are also significant changes to the procedure for cross claims and set offs and claims against, or claims for contribution by, third parties. This includes time limits and requirements for filing and service of such claims.

Expert witnesses

The rules now set out in detail the obligations of parties regarding their letter requesting the expert report. They apply an expert code of conduct and address in detail the required content of an expert report.

Parties may request instead shorter, ‘summary reports’ from experts that address only the assumptions made and opinions held in summary form. These can attach only copies of documents that record instructions given to the expert, rather than comply fully with the disclosure obligations.

Family provision claims

The procedure for family provision claims previously set out under the Supreme Court rules has been streamlined. Notably the required information regarding other potential claimants no longer needs to be contained in a separate affidavit. See the By Lawyers commentaries in the Family Provision guides for more information on the changes.

Amendments to By Lawyers guides

The following By Lawyers SA publications have now been amended – and renamed, where applicable – in line with the Uniform Civil Rules 2020:

  • Magistrates Court Civil – Acting for the Applicant (formerly Magistrates Court Acting for the Plaintiff)
  • Magistrates Court Civil – Acting for the Respondent (formerly Magistrates Court – Acting for the Defendant)
  • Magistrates Court – Intervention Orders (located in Criminal Magistrates Court)
  • Family Provision Claims – Acting for the Applicant (Formerly Family Provision Claims Acting for the Plaintiff)
  • Family Provision Claims – Acting for the Respondent (Formerly Family Provision Claims Acting for the Estate)

Overriding purpose – Litigation – QLD

by

New case added to Queensland litigation guides

All six of the By Lawyers Queensland litigation guides have been updated to provide a link to a recent case on the importance of the ‘Overriding purpose’ provision of the UCPR and the costs sanctions that might apply where it is breached.

The ‘Overriding purpose’

Rule 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) provides that the overriding purpose of the rules is to provide for the expeditious resolution of the real issues in civil proceedings at a minimum of expense. That requires the courts to have the objective of avoiding undue delay, expense and technicality.

Under Rule 5 all parties to proceedings impliedly undertake to conduct their case in an expeditious way. Where they breach this undertaking, the court may dismiss the proceedings or apply costs sanctions. Francis v MSF Sugar Limited [2020] QSC 16 is a stark example of the court doing so.

Costs sanctions

In making indemnity costs orders in favour of the plaintiff in this case, the court noted:

[23] The defendant has conducted itself in this court quite unreasonably – failing to disclose directly relevant documents until the eve of the trial and pleading matters that were false,
according to its own records, and which it could not prove by admissible evidence. This unreasonable conduct has caused the plaintiff to incur unnecessary costs, including costs
thrown away by yesterday’s adjournment and today’s application and short adjournment. It also likely delayed the determination of the plaintiff’s claim and prevented the matter
resolving on an agreed basis without the need for a trial.

Publication updates

The commentary in each of the By Lawyers Queensland litigation guides already highlights the importance of the Overriding purpose provisions. This useful new case illustrates the court’s approach to compliance with Rule 5 and the possible sanctions that will be applied. it has been added to each of the Acting for the Plaintiff and Acting for the Defendant guides in the By Lawyers Supreme Court, District Court and Magistrates Court publications.

 

101 Succession Answers – NSW

by

Following an author review new cases have been added and other enhancements made to the By Lawyers Reference Manual 101 Succession Answers (NSW).

Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36

This case supports the requirement of an ‘interested’ party wishing to challenge the validity of a will to show that they have rights which will be affected by the disputed grant of probate or administration.

Re Estates Brooker-Pain and Soulos [2019] NSWSC 671

Considerations regarding disclosure of documents and information in contested probate proceedings were extensively discussed. This case analysed the applicable law, practice and procedure in the context of applications to set aside subpoenas and notices to produce which called for documents relating to the making of the disputed wills. This included solicitors’ notes and files. The interplay between subpoenas, the court’s Practice Note SC Eq 11 and case management orders was examined in detail.

The court addressed the determination of ‘legitimate forensic purpose’ in such cases, especially where pleadings had not closed and the issues in dispute were uncertain. This decision has therefore been added to the By Lawyers Reference Manual 101 Subpoena Answers too.

The court also commented on the practice of sending ‘Larke v Nugus’ letters to ‘…a person involved in the preparation or execution of a will…[seeking] disclosures about the circumstances in which a will was prepared or executed’.

Application of NSW Trustee & Guardian; Estate of Dudley Keith Vaughn [2019] NSWSC 850 and In the Estate of Hansie Hart [2019] ACTSC 317

These two recent cases each dealt with issues relating to the presumption of death.

Gregory Joseph Mills as trustee v Julie Elizabeth Mills and Ors [2018] NSWSC 363

This case is instructive as to the considerations the court applies when giving judicial advice and determining construction issues on testamentary trusts.

Finnegan & Anor v Garner & Ors [2019] QSC 100

Here the estate faced claims which, if they were resolved by litigation would result in the estate being consumed by legal costs. The court noted, at [10], that:

It is the duty of trustees of the estate not to embark upon expensive litigation which will have the effect of depleting the estate. In Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc v His Eminence Petar The Diocesan Bishop of The Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand Gummow ACJ, Kirby, Hayne and Heydon JJ said that: “a trustee who is sued should take no step in defence of the suit without first obtaining judicial advice about whether it is proper to defend the proceedings.”

Koellner v Spicer [2019] NSWSC 1571

On a family provision claim, an adult child with a medical condition and meagre financial resources was awarded a 35% legacy from the reasonably small estate even though the deceased had expressly excluded him on the basis they had no relationship.

Grant v Roberts; Smith v Smith; Roberts v Smith; Curtis v Smith [2019] NSWSC 843

The court emphasised, including by reference to the ‘overriding principles’ of the Civil Procedure Act, the duty on parties to contain costs in family provision litigation. The court heavily criticised disproportionate costs being incurred.

 

Like all By Lawyers Reference Materials, 101 Succession Answers (NSW) is updated regularly to cover developments in case law and procedure.

Connect with us