Chapman v Gibbo’s Transport Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 720

Chapman v Gibbo’s Transport Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 720

Because it is not presently clear whether the plaintiff's claim or parts of it fall within the statutory scheme of the Act, and because these factual issues are contested and require full evidence, it is inappropriate to dismiss the proceedings against the second defendant prior to trial; leave is granted for the second defendant to amend its defence to raise the statutory defences, but summary determination is refused at this stage.

Parties
Plaintiff: Michael William Chapman; First Defendant: Gibbo's Transport Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Qube Logistics (SL) Pty Ltd; Non Party Insurer Participant (leave to Appear): QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Interlocutory
Outcome
Interlocutory application mostly dismissed, with partial leave granted
Legal Topics
Motor Accident Legislation, Application of Motor Accidents Compensation Act, Leave to Amend Defence, Summary Dismissal, Court's Jurisdictional Limitations
Traffic Law Transport Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Motor Accident Legislation Application of Motor Accidents Compensation Act Leave to Amend Defence Summary Dismissal +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael William Chapman

Plaintiff

Gibbo's Transport Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Qube Logistics (SL) Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited

Non Party Insurer Participant (leave to Appear)

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claim falls within meaning of 'claim' under s 3 and s 3A of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether proceedings are prohibited by s 108 because required certificates have not been obtained
  3. 3 Whether leave to commence proceedings was required under s 109 due to expiration of the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

Because it is not presently clear whether the plaintiff's claim or parts of it fall within the statutory scheme of the Act, and because these factual issues are contested and require full evidence, it is inappropriate to dismiss the proceedings against the second defendant prior to trial; leave is granted for the second defendant to amend its defence to raise the statutory defences, but summary determination is refused at this stage.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application mostly dismissed, with partial leave granted

Orders

  • Grant leave to the second defendant to file an amended defence which adds the paragraphs in annexure 'A' to its notice of motion filed on 3 February 2022.
  • Otherwise dismiss the second defendant's notice of motion filed on 3 February 2022.