Anthony Gilbert Martin v NRMA Limited

[2004] ACTCA 20

ANTHONY GILBERT MARTIN v NRMA LIMITED [2004] ACTCA 20
(12 May 2004)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. ACTCA 5 - 2004
No. SC 1006 of 1988

Judges:         Higgins CJ, Crispin P and Lander J
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:            12 May 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 5 - 2004
  )          No. SC 1006 of 1988
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:ANTHONY GILBERT MARTIN

Appellant

AND:NRMA LIMITED

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Crispin P and Lander J
Date:  12 May 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the application should be dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 5 - 2004
  )          No. SC 1006 of 1988
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:ANTHONY GILBERT MARTIN

Appellant

AND:NRMA LIMITED

Respondent

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Crispin P and Lander J
Date:  12 May 2004
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIGGINS CJ:

1. Well, we are agreed that the application should be dismissed simply on the basis that the issue raised, namely the change of name of NRMA Insurance Ltd to Insurance Australia Ltd, as a matter of law has no effect upon the plaintiff’s rights - or the former plaintiff’s rights or any issue involved in the original application.

1. In any event it does seem that leave to appeal is required, whether or not the proceedings have reached a stage where that leave can now be granted.  I say that because there does seem to have been an order that at one stage was self executing that the application be dismissed but assuming that it is on foot it would nevertheless be refused.

1. The Registrar will settle Appeal Papers and deal with any applications that may be necessary including what the date would be for the appeals to be heard and the like and there usually is an opportunity for seeking directions in respect of that.  However, we can’t do anything about it here.  No doubt we note what you say but we cannot take it any further than that at this point.

1. In the normal course of events where an application is unsuccessful the unsuccessful party should pay the costs of the application, and we’re agreed that that should be so ordered.  So, Mr Martin, as the applicant you pay the respondent’s costs to be agreed or, if not agreed, to be assessed in the usual way. 

I certify that the preceding paragraphs numbered one (1) to four (4) are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Chief Justice Higgins.

Associate:

Date:     26 October 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 5 - 2004
  )          No. SC 1006 of 1988 
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:ANTHONY GILBERT MARTIN

Appellant

AND:NRMA LIMITED

Respondent

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Crispin P and Lander J
Date:  12 May 2004
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CRISPIN P:

1. I agree with the proposed orders and have nothing to add.

I certify that the preceding paragraph numbered five (5) is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, President Crispin.

Associate:

Date:     26 October 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 5 - 2004
  )          No. SC 1006 of 1988
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:ANTHONY GILBERT MARTIN

Appellant

AND:NRMA LIMITED

Respondent

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Crispin P and Lander J
Date:  12 May 2004
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LANDER J:

1. I agree and have nothing to add.

I certify that the preceding paragraph numbered six (6) is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Lander.

Associate:
Date:     26 October 2004

Counsel for the Appellant:  Mr A Martin (self represented litigant)

Solicitor for the Respondent:  Mr U Boettcher

Date of hearing:  12 May 2004

Date of judgment:  12 May 2004