SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Ballesteros v Chidlow & Anor [2005] QSC 280
PARTIES:
MICHELLE THERESE BALLESTEROS
(plaintiff)
v
HERBERT HUGH CHIDLOW
(first defendant)
RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 009 704 152
(second defendant)FILE NO/S:
BS No 10080 of 2004
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
10 October 2005
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
19, 20 and 25 May 2005
JUDGE:
White J
ORDER:
1. Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $99,891.
2. The Second Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action to be assessed on the standard basis on the District Court Scale applicable to matters in which the sum recovered exceeds $50,000.
3. It is certified, pursuant to Item 27(3) of the District Court Scale of Costs, that the Registrar may allow a higher amount for Item 27 costs that the Registrar considers proper in the circumstances.
CATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – REMOTENESS AND CAUSATION – OTHER MATTERS – where plaintiff a passenger in a car accident – where plaintiff resigned from employment after accident – where rent money was owed at the time of resignation – where accrued leave benefits paid upon resignation – whether as a matter of common sense and experience resignation can properly be seen to have been caused by the accident
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – REMOTENESS AND CAUSATION – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – GENERALLY – calculation of injury scale value (“ISV”) pursuant to requirements of the Civil Liability Act 2003 – where multiple injuries – where each injury defined and assessed – where dominant injury identified – whether an uplift of 25 per cent in the ISV assessment appropriate
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 51, s 60, s 61, s 62
Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld), s 6, schedule 3, schedule 7
Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 55B, s 55D,
s 55E
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 54Coop v Johnston [2005] QDC 079, cited
Grice v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 272, followed
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1994-1995) 182 CLR 1, appliedCOUNSEL:
Mr M Grant-Taylor SC with him Mr P Feeley for the plaintiff
Mr R J Douglas SC for the defendantsSOLICITORS:
McInnes Wilson for the plaintiff
Hunt & Hunt for the defendants
The plaintiff was injured when the Toyota Corolla
sedan driven by her mother,
Mrs Glenice Croft, struck the motor vehicle driven by the first defendant at an intersection at Dutton Park on 18 February 2003. The plaintiff, then aged nearly
35 years, was a back seat passenger. The first defendant has admitted liability for the collision.
The principle issues for resolution are the extent to which the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were the cause of her resignation from her employment as an administrative officer in the Queensland Public…
Continue reading Ballesteros v Chidlow
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ballesteros v Chidlow [2005] QSC 280
- Case
- [2005] QSC 280
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether Ballesteros' resignation could be seen as a direct consequence of the accident. It was determined that the resignation, resulting in the loss of accrued leave benefits, was a foreseeable and direct result of the accident. The court assessed the extent of Ballesteros’ injuries and the impact on his ability to work, concluding that the resignation was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the injuries sustained. The court then moved on to assess the quantum of damages. The Civil Liability Act 2003 required a calculation of the injury scale value (ISV) for Ballesteros’ multiple injuries, with a 25 per cent uplift applied for the most dominant injury.
The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for lost wages and accrued leave benefits, which amounted to $99,891. The court also ordered that the second defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the action, to be assessed on the standard basis on the District Court Scale applicable to matters in which the sum recovered exceeds $50,000. The court certified that the Registrar may allow a higher amount for Item 27 costs if considered proper in the circumstances.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $99,891.
2. The Second Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action to be assessed on the standard basis on the District Court Scale applicable to matters in which the sum recovered exceeds $50,000.
3. It is certified, pursuant to Item 27(3) of the District Court Scale of Costs, that the Registrar may allow a higher amount for Item 27 costs that the Registrar considers proper in the circumstances.
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.