Breavington v Godleman [1988] HCA 40

High Court of Australia Mason C.J. Wilson, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ. Breavington v Godleman [1988] HCA 40

ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1988, Aug. 18 Mason C.J.

This appeal raises an important conflict of laws problem. The appellant sued the respondents in the Supreme Court of Victoria for damages for personal injury arising out of a collision between the vehicle in which he was riding and one driven by the first respondent. The collision took place in the Northern Territory. By his statement of claim the appellant alleges that the collision was caused by the negligence of one or more of the respondents. The issue presented by the pleadings is whether the Supreme Court should determine the appellant's claim for damages by reference to (a) the common law principles governing the assessment of damages ordinarily applied in Victoria or (b) the statutory provisions in force in the Northern Territory governing the recovery of damages in actions in the Territory.

The issue arises in this way. By their defences the respondents alleged that the appellant was a resident of the Northern Territory within the meaning of s. 4 of the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 NT ("the Act"). Section 5 of that Act provided:

(1) Subject to sub-section (2), no action for damages shall lie in the Territory in respect of the death of or injury to a resident of the Territory in or as a result of an accident that occurred in the Territory.

(2) Subject to sub-section (3), nothing in sub-section (1) deprives a person of the right to bring an action for damages for pain and suffering or loss of amenities of life.

(3) A person who has received or has elected to receive a benefit under section 17 shall not commence or continue an action referred to in sub-section (2).