Bahonko v Moorfields Community and Ors (No 2) (Ruling)

Case

[2013] VCC 869

18 April 2013 (Revised)

No judgment structure available for this case.

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CIVIL DIVISION

 Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION LIST
WORKCOVER DIVISION

Case No. CI-06-02573

STANISLAWA BAHONKO Plaintiff
v
MOORFIELDS COMMUNITY First Defendant
BODALLA AGE CARE SERVICES Second Defendant
UNITING CHURCH IN AUSTRALIA Third Defendant
and
VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY Fourth Defendant

---

JUDGE:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE SACCARDO

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

18 April 2013

DATE OF RULING:

18 April 2013 (Revised)

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Bahonko v Moorfields Community & Ors (No 2) (Ruling)

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2013] VCC 869

RULING
---

Subject:             ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – amendment of writ

Catchwords:      Amendment of writ – defendant entitled to reasonable particularity – plaintiff seeking to revisit or deny effect of previous order made on plaintiff’s application

Ruling:              Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiff The Plaintiff appeared in person -
For the Defendants Mr N B Chamings Lander & Rogers

HIS HONOUR:

1       In the course of the directions hearing of 21 January 2013, the transcript records an application made by the plaintiff to amend her Particulars of Injury as follows:

MS BAHONKO: 

“I have got further application to make.  In this case I took Your Honour’s attention to p.11 where the physical injuries are stated and I - - -

HIS HONOUR: 

What page?---

MS BAHONKO: 

Eleven on my writ.  I wish to amend my writ to further specify the injuries sustained.

HIS HONOUR: 

Namely?---

MS BAHONKO: 

Pardon?

HIS HONOUR: 

Namely?---

MS BAHONKO: 

I have to specify - - -

HIS HONOUR: 

To specify which injury, the spinal injury?---

MS BAHONKO: 

Spinal, head and loss of vision.  I underestimated loss of vision.  I said 30 per cent.

HIS HONOUR: 

Well, Mr Chamings, is there any objection at this stage to her writ being amended to include those injuries?---

MR CHAMINGS: 

No, Your Honour, if that is the plaintiff’s allegation we won’t stand in her way.

HIS HONOUR: 

Well, I will give you leave to amend your pleading so as to include the following injuries: spinal injuries, physical head injury, and injury to the eyes resulting in impairment of vision.

MS BAHONKO: 

Yes, from the head injury.  The spinal injury I will say…

HIS HONOUR: 

Mrs Bahonko, when you say ‘spinal injury’, is it neck or back or both?---

MS BAHONKO: 

Neck.

HIS HONOUR: 

Yes.

MS BAHONKO: 

New injury to neck.

HIS HONOUR: 

New injury?---

MS BAHONKO: 

Completely new injury to neck and causing spinal canal stenosis, and exacerbation of previous injury to thoracic and lower level of the spine.”

2       The plaintiff now asserts, notwithstanding:

(i)    her application of 21 January 2013 to amend her Writ; and

(ii)   my order of that date granting her leave to make such an amendment;

that no such amendment was made by her to her Particulars of Injury.

3       Having regard to the vagueness and breadth of the plaintiff’s Particulars of Injury in her various pleadings, I am satisfied that the defendants are entitled to reasonable particularity as to the injuries relied upon by the plaintiff in this proceeding so that it is in a position to assess the evidence required by it, medical or otherwise, to meet that case.

4       I am further satisfied that the plaintiff wishes in the proceeding to rely on injuries including spinal injuries, physical head injury, and injury to the eyes, resulting in impairment of vision.  At no time in the course of this directions hearing, or the previous directions hearing, has the plaintiff contended otherwise.

5       In these circumstances, I do not propose to revisit or alter the Order made by me on 21 January 2013.

- - -

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0