Baldock-Davis v Popham - [2023] QSC 24

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Baldock-Davis v Popham & Anor [2023] QSC 24

PARTIES:

MEAH CRYSTAL BALDOCK-DAVIS

(plaintiff)

v
ADRIAN POPHAM

(first defendant)
AAI LIMITED
ABN 48 005 297 807
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 5655 of 2021

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 February 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 December 2022; 15 December 2022; 16 December 2022

JUDGE:

Cooper J

ORDERS:

1.   Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $40,635.44.

2.   The second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs up to and including 23 March 2021 to be assessed in accordance with the Motor Accident Insurance Regulation 2018 (Qld).

3.   The plaintiff pay the second defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on and from 24 March 2021 to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

4.   Execution of the judgment for the plaintiff be stayed until the costs to which the second defendant is entitled under Order 3 have been assessed or otherwise agreed.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – PERSONAL INJURY – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff suffered personal injuries from being struck by a motor vehicle driven by the first defendant – where the plaintiff was aged 20 at the date of sustaining the injuries – where the defendants have admitted liability but defend the claim for damages in the amount sought by the plaintiff – whether the injuries impacted the plaintiff’s past or future earning capacity

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 51, s 59, s 60, s 61, s 62
Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld), reg 7, Schedule 3, Schedule 4, Schedule 7

Bell v Mastermyne Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 331, considered
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22, applied
Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438; [1981] HCA 41, applied
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (No 2) (1990) 169 CLR 638, considered
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1; [1995] HCA 5, applied
Ryan v Bunnings Group Ltd [2020] ACTSC 353, cited
Sanrus Pty Ltd v Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd (No 5) [2019] QSC 210, cited

COUNSEL:

M Smith for the plaintiff

R C Morton with E J Williams for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the plaintiff

Barry Nilsson for the defendants

Ms Baldock-Davis suffered personal injuries on 4 July 2019 (accident injuries) when she was struck by a vehicle driven by the first defendant. In this proceeding she claims damages arising from those injuries. Ms Baldock-Davis was born on 20 December 1998. She was aged 20 at the date of the accident and 23 at the date of trial.
The defendants admitted liability but defended the claim for damages in the amount sought by Ms Baldock-Davis on the basis that her accident injuries were minor and transitory in nature and that by 1 June 2021, when the defence was filed, she had fully…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Baldock-Davis v Popham

Details

AGLC: Baldock-Davis v Popham [2023] QSC 24
Case: [2023] QSC 24
Decision Date: 23 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Baldock-Davis brought a claim against Popham, the driver of a motor vehicle, and the vehicle’s insurer, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained when Popham’s vehicle struck him. The parties have admitted liability on the part of Popham but dispute the amount of damages claimed by Baldock-Davis. The case was heard by the Queensland District Court, which had to determine whether Baldock-Davis’ injuries impacted his past or future earning capacity, and if so, to what extent.

The court had to consider the extent of the injuries sustained by Baldock-Davis, the impact of those injuries on his life, and whether there was any diminution in his capacity to earn income as a result. The court was also required to determine the amount of damages payable to Baldock-Davis, taking into account all relevant factors, including his age at the time of the accident, the nature and extent of his injuries, and the impact of those injuries on his life.

The court found that Baldock-Davis’ injuries did impact his past and future earning capacity. The court considered evidence from medical experts and took into account the fact that Baldock-Davis was only 20 years old at the time of the accident. The court also considered the impact of the injuries on Baldock-Davis’ ability to work and enjoy leisure activities. After considering all the evidence, the court awarded Baldock-Davis damages in the sum of $40,635.44. The court also made orders regarding the payment of costs between the parties.

The court ordered that the second defendant pay Baldock-Davis’ costs up to a certain date, to be assessed in accordance with the Motor Accident Insurance Regulation 2018 (Qld). The court further ordered that Baldock-Davis pay the second defendant’s costs from a certain date, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed. Finally, the court ordered that execution of the judgment for Baldock-Davis be stayed until the costs to which the second defendant is entitled have been assessed or otherwise agreed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $40,635.44.

2. The second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs up to and including 23 March 2021 to be assessed in accordance with the Motor Accident Insurance Regulation 2018 (Qld).

3. The plaintiff pay the second defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on and from 24 March 2021 to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

4. Execution of the judgment for the plaintiff be stayed until the costs to which the second defendant is entitled under Order 3 have been assessed or otherwise agreed.

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.

CITATION:	Baldock-Davis v Popham & Anor [2023] QSC 24
PARTIES:	MEAH CRYSTAL BALDOCK-DAVIS (plaintiff) v ADRIAN POPHAM (first defendant) AAI LIMITED ABN 48 005 297 807 (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 5655 of 2021
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 February 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 December 2022; 15 December 2022; 16 December 2022
JUDGE:	Cooper J
ORDERS:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $40,635.44. *2. The second defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs up to and including 23 March 2021 to be assessed in accordance with the Motor Accident Insurance Regulation 2018* (Qld). 3. The plaintiff pay the second defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding on and from 24 March 2021 to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed. 4. Execution of the judgment for the plaintiff be stayed until the costs to which the second defendant is entitled under Order 3 have been assessed or otherwise agreed.**
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – PERSONAL INJURY – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff suffered personal injuries from being struck by a motor vehicle driven by the first defendant – where the plaintiff was aged 20 at the date of sustaining the injuries – where the defendants have admitted liability but defend the claim for damages in the amount sought by the plaintiff – whether the injuries impacted the plaintiff’s past or future earning capacity Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 51, s 59, s 60, s 61, s 62 Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld), reg 7, Schedule 3, Schedule 4, Schedule 7 Bell v Mastermyne Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 331, considered Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22, applied Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438; [1981] HCA 41, applied Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (No 2) (1990) 169 CLR 638, considered Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1; [1995] HCA 5, applied Ryan v Bunnings Group Ltd [2020] ACTSC 353, cited Sanrus Pty Ltd v Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd (No 5) [2019] QSC 210, cited
COUNSEL:	M Smith for the plaintiff R C Morton with E J Williams for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the plaintiff Barry Nilsson for the defendants