Anderson v Claytons Towing Service Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2026] QSC 32

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Anderson v Claytons Towing Service Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2026] QSC 32 PARTIES: COLIN JOHN ANDERSON (plaintiff) v CLAYTONS TOWING SERVICE PTY LTD (ABN 91 119 272 285) (first defendant) and EDWARD VAN DER VEER (second defendant) and TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION (ABN 22 033 947 623) (third defendant) and ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED (ABN 15 000 122 850) (third party) FILE NO/S: S713/2022 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Claim – further orders ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court of Queensland at Rockhampton DELIVERED ON: 10 March 2026 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane Written submissions received on 10 March 2026 JUDGE: Copley J ORDERS: 1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $1,092,350.18 clear of the WorkCover refund of $303,177.20. 2. Judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant in the sum of $2,517,049.50. 3. It is declared pursuant to section 6(c) of the Law Reform Act 1995 that liability in respect of the plaintiff's damages be apportioned 50 per cent against the first defendant and 50 per cent against the third defendant. -- 1 of 3 -- 2 4. It is further ordered that: (a) Should the first defendant pay the said sum of $1,092,350.18 clear of the WorkCover refund of $303,177.20 to the plaintiff, it shall then be entitled to recover by way of contribution the sum of $697,763.69 from the third defendant whose liability to the plaintiff in respect of the said sum of $697,763.69 shall be discharged by such recovery. (b) Should the third defendant pay the said sum of $2,517,049.50 to the plaintiff, it shall then be entitled to recover by way of contribution the sum of $394,586.49 from the first defendant, whose liability to the plaintiff in respect of the said sum of $394,586.49 shall be discharged by such recovery. 5. The third party notice is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – where orders did not adequately credit the amount already paid by the first defendant – where orders amended to comply with s 6(c) of the Law Reform Act 1995 – whether orders made may be amended pursuant to r 388 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld), s 6 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 388 Bilson v Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd; Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd v Bilson [No 2] [2024] QCA 220 Reddock v ST&T Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] QSC 293 COUNSEL: M T O’Sullivan for the plaintiff R J Lynch for the first defendant K S Howe and S Sullivan for the second and third defendants R Morton for the third party SOLICITORS: Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff BT Lawyers for the first defendant Quinlan Miller & Treston for the second and third defendants Moray & Agnew Lawyers for the third party [1] Judgment in this matter was given on 5 March 2026.1 [2] On 10 March 2026 the parties submitted that amendments should be made to orders 1 and 2 pursuant to r 388 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). 1 Anderson v Claytons Towing Service Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] QSC 26. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [3] Orders 1 and 2 were: (1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $546,175.09. (2) Judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant in the sum of $1,970,874.41. [4] The parties submitted that order 1 did not adequately credit the first defendant for the amount it had already contributed to the judgment sum, namely, the refund of $303,177.20. [5] The parties submitted that their proposed orders will take into account one half of the gross assessed damages against the first defendant, namely, $697,763.69, reduced by the amount of the refund ($303,177.20) which, in effect, has already been paid to the plaintiff, to arrive at the amount the first defendant should properly contribute to the judgment, which is $394,586.49. [6] The parties have also proposed that the orders be varied to adopt the formula of words used in the orders made in Reddock v ST&T Pty Ltd & Anor2 and which comply with s 6 of the Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld). [7] The error made in orders 1 and 2 was accidental. I am satisfied that r 388 of the UCPR permits the amendments sought.3 [8] Accordingly, the orders of the Court are: 1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $1,092,350.18 clear of the WorkCover refund of $303,177.20. 2. Judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant in the sum of $2,517,049.50. 3. It is declared pursuant to section 6(c) of the Law Reform Act 1995 that liability in respect of the plaintiff's damages be apportioned 50 per cent against the first defendant and 50 per cent against the third defendant. 4. It is further ordered that: (a) Should the first defendant pay the said sum of $1,092,350.18 clear of the WorkCover refund of $303,177.20 to the plaintiff, it shall then be entitled to recover by way of contribution the sum of $697,763.69 from the third defendant whose liability to the plaintiff in respect of the said sum of $697,763.69 shall be discharged by such recovery. (b) Should the third defendant pay the said sum of $2,517,049.50 to the plaintiff, it shall then be entitled to recover by way of contribution the sum of $394,586.49 from the first defendant, whose liability to the plaintiff in respect of the said sum of $394,586.49 shall be discharged by such recovery. 5. The third party notice is dismissed. 2 [2022] QSC 293. 3 Bilson v Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd; Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd v Bilson [No 2] [2024] QCA 220 at [3]-[6]. -- 3 of 3 --