Amaca Pty Ltd v Phillips

Case [2014] NSWCA 249

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Amaca Pty Ltd v Phillips [2014] NSWCA 249
Hearing dates:16 July 2014
Decision date: 31 July 2014
Before: Barrett JA at [1]; Ward JA at [2]; Tobias AJA at [71]
Decision:

1. Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

2. Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the appeal.

3. No order as to costs of the cross-appeal.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: DAMAGES - Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 (NSW) s 15B - compensation for gratuitous care for dependents - whether trial judge erred calculating damages at hourly statutory rate provided by plaintiff as opposed to commercial value of those services
DAMAGES - Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 (NSW) s 15B - compensation for gratuitous care for dependents - whether trial judge erred in determining the life expectancy of plaintiff's wife or number of hours gratuitous care which should be compensated - whether there this was a decision in point of law allowing intervention
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Civil Liability Amendment Bill 2006 (NSW)
Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 (NSW)
Lord Campbell's Act
Cases Cited: Amaca v Novek [2009] NSWCA 50; (2009) 9 DDCR 199; [2009] Aust Torts Reports 82-001
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Berkeley Challenge Pty Limited v Howarth [2013] NSWCA 370
Burnicle v Cutelli [1982] 2 NSWLR 26
CSR Ltd v Amaca Ltd [2009] NSWCA 338
CSR Ltd v Eddy [2005] HCA 64; (2005) 226 CLR 1
Cummings v Canberra Theatre Trust [1980] FCA 209
ECS Group (Australia) Pty Ltd v Hobby [2014] NSWCA 193
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45; (1977) 139 CLR 161
Hodges v Frost [1984] FCA 98; (1984) 53 ALR 373
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kendrick v Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1288
Nguyen v Nguyen [1990] HCA 9; (1990) 169 CLR 245
K J Phillips v Amaca Pty Ltd [2014] NSWDDT 2
State of New South Wales v Perez [2013] NSWCA 149; (2013) 84 NSWLR 570
Sullivan v Gordon [1999] NSWCA 338; (1999) 47 NSWLR 319
Van Gervan v Fenton [1992] HCA 54; (1992) 175 CLR 327
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Amaca Pty Ltd (ACN 000 035 512) (under NSW Administered Winding Up) (Appellant/Cross Respondent)
Kevin John Phillips (Respondent/Cross Appellant)
Representation: Counsel:
TGR Parker SC with JC Sheller (Appellant/Cross Respondent)
DJ Russell SC with N Ghabar
(Respondent/Cross Appellant)
Solicitors:
DLA Piper (Appellant/Cross Respondent)
Slater & Gordon (Respondent/Cross Appellant)
File Number(s):2014/153106
Publication restriction:Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Citation:
K J Phillips…

Continue reading Amaca Pty Ltd v Phillips

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Amaca Pty Ltd v Phillips [2014] NSWCA 249
Case
[2014] NSWCA 249
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amaca Pty Ltd appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the Dust Diseases Tribunal, which had awarded damages to the respondent, Mr. Phillips, for dust-related personal injuries. The primary dispute concerned the calculation of damages awarded for gratuitous care provided by Mr. Phillips' wife. Amaca argued that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of these damages.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two principal legal issues. Firstly, whether the trial judge had erred in calculating the compensation for gratuitous care by applying the statutory hourly rate provided by the plaintiff, rather than the commercial value of those services. Secondly, the Court had to consider whether the trial judge had erred in determining the life expectancy of the plaintiff's wife and the number of hours of gratuitous care that should be compensated, and if such an error constituted a decision in point of law that would permit appellate intervention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal. It reasoned that the statutory provision, s 15B of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 (NSW), contemplated compensation for gratuitous care based on the statutory rate, not necessarily the commercial value of the services. The Court found no error of law in the trial judge's assessment of the wife's life expectancy or the quantum of care to be compensated, concluding that these were findings of fact within the Tribunal's purview. Consequently, the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

2. Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the appeal.

3. No order as to costs of the cross-appeal.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.