Bannister v Healey - [2012] QDC 237

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bannister v Healey [2012] QDC 237

PARTIES:

Nikki Bannister
(plaintiff)

v

Dennis Allan Healey
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

3805/11

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Civil Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

31 August 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 August 2012

JUDGE:

Judge Farr SC

ORDER:

1. There will be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $364,112.88.

2. I order that the respondent pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to this assessment at the standard rate.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – assessment of quantum of damages for personal injuries – lumbar spine injury – 7% whole person impairment – 7% psychological impairment

Hoppe v Burns [2010] QSC 490, cited
Hughes v Grogan & Anor [2007] QSC 046, cited

Kriz v King [2006] 1 Qd R 327; QCA 351, cited

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 59
Civil Liability Regulations 2003 (Qld), Pt 2

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 509

COUNSEL:

SOLICITORS:

Kerin Lawyers for the plaintiff

No appearance for the defendant

Facts

The plaintiff was born on 4 May 1990 and is currently 22 years of age. On 21 March 2009 she was injured in a boating accident that occurred in the Broadwater at Southport. She was a passenger in a three metre aluminium dingy which was struck by a 17.3 metre charter vessel which had proceeded under power directly towards and over the dingy. The defendant was the master, owner, operator and person in charge of that vessel which at the time of the accident had in excess of 30 passengers on board including a number of female entertainers who were at that time, topless.

At the time of the collision the defendant was not manning the helm of the boat but was on the lower deck in the vicinity of the topless entertainers. His absence from the helm meant that no-one was either manning it nor keeping a look out ahead.

The accident occurred at about 2.30 pm. The plaintiff and the other two occupants of the dingy tried without success to attract the attention of someone on the larger vessel and after realising that the larger vessel remained on a collision course they jumped into the sea in order to avoid being hit. The charter boat motored into the dingy and ran over the plaintiff causing personal injury.

History of the matter

Default judgment was entered on behalf of the plaintiff on 18 November 2011 as the defendant had failed to file a notice of intention to defend.

On 23 May 2012 Judge Noud DCJ ordered that this matter be set down for an assessment of damages pursuant to Part 8, Rule 509 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

The defendant did not appear at the assessment of damages hearing.

The plaintiff’s injuries

Following the collision, the plaintiff was transported to the Gold Coast Hospital. Examination revealed a…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bannister v Healey and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] QDC 237
Decision Date: 31 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bannister v Healey involved a dispute over the assessment of damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, Bannister, at the hands of the defendant, Healey. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, with Justice Byrne presiding. The plaintiff sought compensation for a lumbar spine injury, which resulted in 7% whole person impairment and 7% psychological impairment. The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff for his injuries. This involved determining the financial compensation necessary to cover the plaintiff's medical expenses, loss of earnings, and other related costs, as well as accounting for the non-economic losses such as pain and suffering.

The court undertook a detailed analysis of the evidence provided by both parties, including expert medical opinions and assessments of the plaintiff's future needs. Justice Byrne considered the established legal principles regarding the assessment of damages for personal injuries, focusing on the extent of the impairment and the impact on the plaintiff's life. The court examined the plaintiff's pre-existing health conditions and how these might have influenced the severity and prognosis of the injuries. After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that the appropriate compensation for the plaintiff's injuries, taking into account both economic and non-economic losses, was $364,112.88. This sum was deemed sufficient to address the plaintiff's current and future needs arising from the injuries.

In addition to the award of damages, the court ordered that the defendant, Healey, pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to this assessment at the standard rate. The judgment provides a clear and reasoned approach to the assessment of damages in cases involving personal injuries, offering guidance for similar future cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. There will be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $364,112.88.

2. I order that the respondent pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to this assessment at the standard rate.

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:	Bannister v Healey [2012] QDC 237
PARTIES:	Nikki Bannister (plaintiff) v Dennis Allan Healey (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	3805/11
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Civil Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	31 August 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 August 2012
JUDGE:	Judge Farr SC
ORDER:	1. There will be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $364,112.88. 2. I order that the respondent pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to this assessment at the standard rate.
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – assessment of quantum of damages for personal injuries – lumbar spine injury – 7% whole person impairment – 7% psychological impairment Hoppe v Burns [2010] QSC 490, cited Hughes v Grogan & Anor [2007] QSC 046, cited Kriz v King [2006] 1 Qd R 327; QCA 351, cited Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 59 Civil Liability Regulations 2003 (Qld), Pt 2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 509
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:	Kerin Lawyers for the plaintiff No appearance for the defendant