Written by Peter Carter

July 25, 2020

09/10/00 – date of the accident

28/02/01 – NOAC delivered in the interim attempts made to arrange compulsory conference without success including Suncorp having a check medical examination

17/10/01 – letter to Suncorp enclosing disclosure documents under s.51B(5)

17/10/01 – letter to Suncorp making “WP” offer to settle including lump sum for past and future G-v-K

November 2001 – Suncorp advised that unless the matter could be set down for conference application would be made to the Court

Dr Morgan report obtained by Suncorp however still no compulsory conference

12/03/02 – Suncorp writes to claimant’s solicitors enclosing report of Dr Morgan dated 08 February 2002 and requesting information under statutory declaration pursuant to s.45(7) relating to:

  • Details of heads of damage
  • Details of the G-v-K claim
  • Copies of receipts for special damages

Compulsory conference to be held 21 days after the information provided and reserve the right to further postpone depending on what came out of the further material. The claimant had already nominated 20 March for holding of the conference.

21/03/02 – Application heard before the Court. Claimant seeks to dispense with the holding of the conference. Suncorp seeks orders that claimant provides the information sought under s.45(7).

PER Samios DCJ:

  1. s.45 does not relate to providing details as to the heads of damage cf s.45(1)(b)(ii) – information regarding “the nature of the injuries resulting from the accident and of any consequent disabilities and financial loss”
  2. s.45 does not relate to providing G-v-K details or details of special damages
  3. the applicant had done everything required of her under the Act
  4. no reason for the there not have been a compulsory conference
  5. accordingly, the holding of the conference dispensed with

EDWARDS -V- SUNCORP METWAY

24/01/01 -date of the accident

12/03/01 – NOAC delivered liability admitted, exchange of correspondence, medical reports etc provided to Suncorp

09/11/01 – Dr Pentis reports “Currently gentle exercises, strengthening exercises and see how well she recovers over the next year. It is early at present and she should be encouraged to use it actively and see how well she recovers before any operative procedures are undertaken at her age.”

25/02/02 – Suncorp writes to claimant’s solicitors requesting information pursuant to s.45 under statutory declaration in relation to:

  • claim for special damages
  • claim for care
  • confirmation that no claim is made for economic loss

Suncorp opposes compulsory conference until:

  • further report of Dr Pentis obtained
  • information provided under s.45

Suncorp argue that this information is information relating to “financial loss”

Claimant’s only claim for special damages was HIC charge. Claimant asserted that all information required to be given was given

PER Samios DCJ:

  1. the requirement of s45 is predicated on the information being reasonably requested
  2. the notion that other expenses should be verified by stat dec amounts more to suspicion and not something that can reasonably be requested in the negotiation stages
  3. nothing in the Act to suggest that there must be compliance with every aspect of the claimant’s obligations – unsure as to what this means?
  4. The applicant has complied as fully as she could
  5. Essentially Samios found that:
    • The information was not reasonably requested
    • The information was not about financial loss
    • Notwithstanding the aforesaid still not sufficient to justify the delay in the holding of the conference
    • 1 year after the accident and the insurer is still asking for information about specials, care and financial loss

JENSEN -V- SUNCORP METWAY

07/10/00 – date of the accident

21/02/01 – NOAC delivered

08/08/01 – liability admitted correspondence passes between the parties including a list of documents by the claimant

05/10/01 – Dr van Der Wald, an orthopaedic surgeon, provides a report to the claimant’s solicitors which states that the claimant was unemployed at the time of the accident, had not worked since the accident but was due to start work in a few weeks time as a magician’s assistant

04/12/01 – claimant writes to Suncorp appointing 2 pm on Wednesday 19 December 2001 for holding of compulsory conference

14/12/01 – Suncorp write requesting information pursuant to s.45 of the Act under stat dec that the claimant provides details as to:

  • full particulars of all heads of damage claimed including a detailed G-v-K claim (including pre and post-accident duties) and copies of all tax returns etc for the 3 years before the accident if a claim for economic loss was being pursued
  • advising that Suncorp were obtaining a GP’s report
  • advising that Suncorp would consider organising an IME once all information provided

21/12/01 – Suncorp again writes requesting the information

PER Samios DCJ:

  1. the information requested did not relate to financial loss and therefore was not reasonably requested;
  2. s.45 contemplates a request for information such as
    • when did the claimant start work as a magician’s assistant
    • what was the net pay
    • what were her duties
  3. the Respondent is seeking to have full particulars of each head of damage the applicant intends to claim
  4. The information being sought was not reasonably requested. Rather, Suncorp was seeking an assurance that what had been disclosed by the applicant was what the applicant intended relying upon
  5. The reference to “information” in s45 is information that might not be apparent from information already provided
  6. Information should be given its ordinary meaning
  7. Conference dispensed with