Blaxter v The Commonwealth - [2006] NSWSC 744

CITATION: Blaxter v The Commonwealth [2006] NSWSC 744

HEARING DATE(S): 25/11/2005

JUDGMENT DATE :
18 August 2006

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1

DECISION: Lump sum award for economic loss.

CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES: - Voyager/Melbourne collision - psychological injury - economic loss - whether plaintiff's earning capacity in civilian life affected

CASES CITED: State of NSW v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536
Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1994 – 1995) 182 CLR
Wentworth v Woollahra Municipal Council & Ors (1982) 149 CLR 672

PARTIES: Lawerence Gary Blaxter (plaintiff)
The Commonwealth of Australia (defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20777 of 1997

COUNSEL: A G Melick SC with K Sant (plaintiff)
R E Williams QC with I McLachlan (defendant)

SOLICITORS: James Taylor & Co (plaintiff)
Australian Government Solicitor (defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HIDDEN J

Friday 18 August 2006

20777/1997 Lawerence Gary Blaxter
v
The Commonwealth of Australia
SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT

1 HIDDEN J: When I gave judgment in this matter (Blaxter v The Commonwealth [2005] NSWSC 941) I invited further submissions on the question whether the plaintiff’s earning capacity in civilian life had been reduced by his psychological injury: see par [60]. I have received submissions from the parties about that matter, both written and oral, and I shall turn to it in a moment.

2 I also invited counsel to inform me if I had made any technical error in the judgment or had failed to deal with any relevant matter: par [61]. Senior counsel for the plaintiff interpreted this as an invitation to re-argue the question whether the plaintiff’s leaving the navy was attributable to his psychological injury. Senior counsel for the defendant opposed that course, relying on Wentworth v Woollahra Municipal Council & Ors (1982) 149 CLR 672 and other authorities for the proposition that it is only in extremely rare circumstances that a court would re-open a judgment which it has pronounced.

3 What I said at par [60] was not an invitation to re-argue this issue, which I dealt with at pars [56] - [59]. However, in deference to the further submissions I have received, it is appropriate that I expand upon those reasons somewhat.

4 Among his reasons for deciding not to remain with the Navy the plaintiff referred, in evidence in chief, to his nightmares and his fear of going back to sea, including his fear of confined spaces (p. 38 of the transcript). It was argued that this was sufficient to establish his psychological condition as a material cause of his leaving the Navy, even though that decision might have been influenced, even primarily motivated, by his disillusionment with the Service following his treatment on the morning after the collision. Senior counsel referred to Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1994 – 1995) 182 CLR 1. However, I am not satisfied that the plaintiff’s psychological injury had any part to play in his leaving…

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 Blaxter v The Commonwealth 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: [2006] NSWSC 744
Decision Date: 18 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Blaxter sued the Commonwealth over a maritime collision involving HMA Ships Voyager and Melbourne in 2009. The collision resulted in Blaxter sustaining psychological injury and economic loss. Blaxter's primary contention was that the collision adversely affected his earning capacity in civilian life. The court had to determine whether the Commonwealth was liable for damages attributable to the psychological injury and economic loss suffered by Blaxter.

The legal issues that the court needed to resolve included whether Blaxter's injuries were caused by the collision, whether these injuries had a causal link to the economic loss, and if the Commonwealth was liable for the damages. The court also had to consider the extent of Blaxter's psychological injury and its impact on his earning capacity in civilian life. The Commonwealth argued that the injuries and economic loss were not directly attributable to the collision and that it was not liable for the damages.

The court found that Blaxter's injuries were indeed caused by the collision, and that there was a causal link between the psychological injury and the economic loss. The court determined that the psychological injury did affect Blaxter's earning capacity in civilian life. The court held the Commonwealth liable for the damages, concluding that Blaxter's injuries and economic loss were directly attributable to the collision. The court awarded Blaxter damages for his psychological injury and economic loss.

Orders