Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCA
  3. 2006
  4. Merrin v Cairns Port Authority - [2006] QCA 278

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Merrin v Cairns Port Authority[2006] QCA 278

Merrin v Cairns Port Authority[2006] QCA 278

 

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

 

CITATION:

Merrin & Anor v Cairns Port Authority [2006] QCA 278

PARTIES:

ANNETTE ELIZABETH MERRIN
(applicant/appellant)
THOMAS WILLIAM MERRIN
(applicant/appellant)
v
CAIRNS PORT AUTHORITY
(respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6371 of 2005

SC No 317 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

4 August 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 July 2006

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams and Holmes JJA

Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY – COURTS – ATTEMPT TO OUST JURISDICTION OF COURT – where the appellants applied to have a re-trial of the initial proceeding transferred from the District Court to the Supreme Court – the appellants sought to add claims for personal injury in addition to existing claims for property damage – whether the personal injury claims are of such a quantum that the District Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 68, s 82

Brunsden v Humphrey (1884) 14 QBD 141, applied

Re Lovell, unreported, Lee M, SC No 587 of 1983, 5 August 1983, applied

Remote Data Systems Pty Ltd & Ors v Hoover & Ors [2000] QCA 116; Appeal No 5161 of 1999, 7 April 2000, applied

COUNSEL:

The appellants appeared on their own behalf

A R Philp SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellants appeared on their own behalf

MacDonnells Solicitors (Cairns) for the respondent

[1]  THE COURT:  This appeal is the latest episode in the ongoing saga of litigation between the Merrins ("the appellants") and the Cairns Port Authority ("the respondent") consequent upon the sinking of the catamaran owned by the appellants on 28 March 1997 in the waters of Trinity Inlet. 

[2] A jury trial claiming damages for the loss of the vessel proceeded in the District Court at Cairns in 2000 and ended in judgment for the present respondent.  The appellants successfully appealed and a retrial was ordered: Merrin & Anor v Cairns Port Authority [2001] QCA 178.   

[3] This is an appeal from a decision of Jones J on 3 August 2005 dismissing the application by the appellants to have their proceeding, the retrial, transferred from the District Court to the Supreme Court.  The application was based on the fact that the appellants wished to include in their existing proceeding, claims for damages for personal injury sustained by each.  It was contended that the totality of the three claims would take the total beyond the jurisdiction of the District Court. 

[4] In support of the application the appellants (who for some years now have been appearing on their own behalf) drafted a statement of claim for use in proceedings in the Supreme Court; the amount claimed, covering the three causes of action, was $1,456,000. 

[5] Pursuant to s 68 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) the District Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine all personal actions where the damages sought to be recovered do not exceed $250,000.  If the claim was amended as proposed by the appellants, but the proceeding remained in the District Court, there would be three separate causes of action joined in the one proceeding, and the monetary limit of $250,000 would apply to each of those three causes of action.

[6] The leading case of Brunsden v Humphrey (1884) 14 QBD 141 is sufficient authority for the proposition that there would be three separate causes of action.  When considering the application of the monetary limit of jurisdiction one has regard to each separate cause of action; the decision of this Court in Remote Data Systems Pty Ltd & Ors v Hoover & Ors [2000] QCA 116 is sufficient authority for that.  The decision of the High Court in Uittenbroek v Briggs (1906) 103 CLR 175 also supports that approach. 

[7] That is the way Jones J approached the matter.  On the material before him he concluded that the property damage claim would be within the $250,000 upper limit.  Also, on the material available to him he concluded that the appellants had not established with "clarity" that there were grounds for supposing that the amount recoverable with respect to either cause of action claiming damages for personal injury would be in excess of the jurisdictional limit of the District Court.  Section 82 of the District Court Act 1967 empowers the court to order a transfer "on the ground that there is reasonable ground for supposing that the relief or remedy sought is not available in the District Court".  Master Lee QC in Lovell (unreported, No. 587 of 1983, 5 August 1983) held that the appropriate test was an objective one and the "mere opinion" of the applicant or a solicitor was not sufficient.  That was followed in Doo v Murphy (unreported, No. 995 of 1992, 22 December 1992). 

[8] Jones J applied the appropriate objective test in concluding that it had not been demonstrated with sufficient clarity that any of the three claims was beyond the monetary jurisdiction of the District Court.  Because of that he dismissed the application.

[9] In fact the retrial went ahead in the District Court on 8 August 2005.  The appellants amended their pleading to include a claim for damages for personal injury allegedly sustained by each resulting from the sinking of the vessel.  On 7 February 2006 McLauchlan QC DCJ dismissed the proceeding and gave judgment for the defendant.  The learned trial judge assessed quantum with respect to each of the three claims; the property damage claim, the personal injuries claim by Mr Merrin, and the personal injury claim by Mrs Merrin.  In each case the assessment was within the jurisdiction of the District Court.

[10]  In those circumstances, as counsel for the respondent pointed out, there is now no proceeding pending in the District Court which can be transferred to the Supreme Court.  In consequence it would be pointless this Court on the hearing of the appeal considering ordering a transfer of proceedings.

[11]  The appellants have in fact lodged an appeal from the judgment of the District Court on 7 February 2006.  Mrs Merrin submitted that in the circumstances the appeal against the decision of Jones J should be adjourned so that it could be heard in conjunction with the appeal against the judgment of McLauchlan QC DCJ.  Again it would be pointless to do that.  The decision of Jones J was clearly correct on the material then before him.  If the appellants are successful in appealing the decision of the District Court on 7 February 2006 and obtain an order for a further retrial, there would be nothing to prevent them from applying on material then available to them to have the further retrial transferred to the Supreme Court.  That application would then be determined on the material then placed before the court.

[12]  For all the above reasons there is no substance in the appeal and it should be dismissed with costs.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Merrin & Anor v Cairns Port Authority

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Merrin v Cairns Port Authority

  • MNC:

    [2006] QCA 278

  • Court:

    QCA

  • Judge(s):

    de Jersey CJ, Williams JA, Holmes JA

  • Date:

    04 Aug 2006

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Brunsden v Humphrey (1884) 14 QBD 141
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1884) 14 QBD 141
Cite 2 - (1884) 14 QBD 141
Merrin v Cairns Port Authority [2001] QCA 178
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2001] QCA 178
Remote Data Systems Pty Ltd v Hoover [2000] QCA 116
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2000] QCA 116
Cite 2 - [2000] QCA 116
Uittenbroek v Briggs (1906) 103 CLR 175
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1906) 103 CLR 175

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Brookfield v RealEstate Now Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 2262 citations
Liu v Body Corporate for the Winston (Cairns) Community Titles Scheme 37263 [2024] QDC 2282 citations
Pritchard v The Brisbane City Council [2020] QDC 1891 citation
The Jurisdiction Of The District Court In Trust And Succession (2024) 1 QLJ 73 2 citations
Woolworths Ltd v Graham [2007] QDC 3011 citation
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.