Fuller v Reel Trans Pty Limited [2003] NSWSC 45

Fuller v Reel Trans Pty Limited [2003] NSWSC 45

Although it was arguable that the plaintiff's injury was not caused by the driving of the forklift, it was arguable that the forklift was not fit for the purpose for which it was intended, namely enabling the plaintiff to ascertain reel serial numbers, and therefore that there was a defect in the forklift. The injury accordingly fell within s 3(iv) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, and because no certificate under ss 92 and 94 had been issued, the plaintiff's statement of claim was not maintainable and had to be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Common Law Proceeding for Personal Injury / Defendant's Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Statement of Claim
Outcome
The statement of claim was dismissed, with the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs up to and including 18 December 2002 and thereafter each party to pay its own costs.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Statement of Claim' 'definition of Injury Under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999' 'defect in Motor Vehicle' 'certificate Requirements Under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999' 'costs']
['personal Injury' 'motor Accidents Compensation' 'civil Procedure'] ['strike Out of Statement of Claim' 'definition of Injury Under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999' 'defect in Motor Vehicle' 'certificate Requirements Under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Common Law Proceeding for Personal Injury / Defendant's Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's injury fell within s 3 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999." 'Whether the injury was caused during the driving of the forklift.' 'Whether the injury was caused during the use or operation of the forklift by a defect in the vehicle.' 'Whether the statement of claim was maintainable in the absence of a certificate under ss 92 and 94 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although it was arguable that the plaintiff's injury was not caused by the driving of the forklift, it was arguable that the forklift was not fit for the purpose for which it was intended, namely enabling the plaintiff to ascertain reel serial numbers, and therefore that there was a defect in the forklift. The injury accordingly fell within s 3(iv) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, and because no certificate under ss 92 and 94 had been issued, the plaintiff's statement of claim was not maintainable and had to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

The statement of claim was dismissed, with the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs up to and including 18 December 2002 and thereafter each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • ['The statement of claim is dismissed.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs up to and including the 18 December 2002 (the date of the last conference) and thereafter each party is to pay its own costs."]