SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
AAI Limited v McQuitty [2016] QCA 326
PARTIES:
AAI LIMITED trading as SUNCORP INSURANCE
ABN 48 005 297 807
(appellant)
v
TAI RAYMOND McQUITTY by his litigation guardians, KATHARINA KIRGIS and ROBYN IRENE ATKINSON
(respondent)
STUART ARTHUR MIDGLEY
(first defendant/not a party to the appeal)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 3253 of 2016
SC No 3108 of 2013DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2016] QSC 36DELIVERED ON:
6 December 2016
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
26 July 2016
JUDGES:
Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Dalton J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES – PAIN AND SUFFERING – where the respondent suffered multiple injuries in a car crash, the worst of which was a closed head injury and severe traumatic brain injury – where the evidence at trial did not particularly focus on whether the respondent had a personality disorder before the accident – where the trial judge did not deduct any part of the assessed injury scale value for a pre-existing condition – whether the trial judge erred in not taking into account the respondent’s ‘pre-injury challenging and permanent personality traits’ as a pre-existing condition within the meaning of s 7(1) of Schedule 3 to the Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld) – whether the trial judge erred in not having regard to relevant factors in fixing the injury scale value pursuant to s 9 of Schedule 3 to the Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld)
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – PAST CARE – where the respondent was cared for by friends and family after the accident – where the trial judge awarded compensation for past care on the basis of what was needed by the respondent at the commercial cost of care – where the Court will not interfere with findings of fact – whether the trial judge erred in not awarding damages for past care on the basis of what had actually been provided, rather than on the basis of what was needed – whether the trial judge erred in awarding compensation based upon the commercial cost of care
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – FUTURE CARE – where the trial judge awarded compensation for the future care of the respondent – whether the trial judge erred in using agency rates to calculate the compensation of future care – whether the trial judge erred in assessing the respondent’s life expectancy
Continue reading AAI Limited v McQuitty
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- AAI Limited v McQuitty [2016] QCA 326
- Case
- [2016] QCA 326
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal considered whether the trial judge erred in not deducting any part of the injury scale value for McQuitty’s pre-existing personality traits. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether McQuitty had a personality disorder before the accident and that the trial judge did not err in not deducting any part of the injury scale value for a pre-existing condition. The Court also considered whether the trial judge erred in fixing the injury scale value without considering relevant factors, but found no error in the trial judge’s approach. Regarding past care, the Court held that the trial judge did not err in awarding compensation for past care based on what was needed by McQuitty at the commercial cost of care, rather than what had actually been provided. Finally, the Court held that the trial judge did not err in using agency rates to calculate the compensation for future care or in assessing McQuitty’s life expectancy.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal. The Court held that the trial judge’s approach to assessing damages for personal injuries was correct, and that there was no error in the trial judge’s assessment of damages for past and future care. The Court found that the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion in fixing the injury scale value and in assessing damages for past and future care.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.