Bould v Fooks

[2012] QDC 233

[2012] QDC 233

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 1015 of 2011

SHARON MARGARET BOULD and Ors	Plaintiffs
and
PEGGY ANNE FOOKS and Ors	Defendants

BRISBANE

..DATE 14/08/2012

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 98

Sanction of dependency claim - court's duty to determine the appropriateness of both the global amount to be paid and the apportionment among the plaintiffs - plaintiff under a disability had not been independently represented or advised.
HIS HONOUR:  The court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft which sanctions, so far as the situation of the third plaintiff makes it necessary, the compromise of a dependency claim.  The third plaintiff, although he's doing well in life, has been assessed as suffering a disability that makes it appropriate that his entitlement be managed by the Public Trustee.  The requirements of rule 98 appear to have been satisfied. 

The court is grateful to have the two advices of Mr Lynch of counsel tendered as Exhibits 1 and 2 and now, for confidentiality reasons, to be placed in a sealed envelope.  Those advices assist the court in its task which is one new to me.  The recent changes in the court's monetary jurisdiction are likely to make dependency claims more common in this court. 

There are two issues for the court.  The first is whether the lump sum settlement figure is an appropriate one considering the third plaintiff's best interests and the other is whether the apportionment of the net sum produced is an appropriate one so far as he is concerned. 

The proceeding is not without its problems and complexities.  The material considered by the court persuades me that the sanction is an appropriate one to give.  The court's conscious that there's a special responsibility to take account of the third plaintiff's situation, given that he hasn't been independently advised.  That's hardly surprising in the context of what appears to be a close and cohesive family which remains intact, notwithstanding that some of them are now well past the age of majority.  So, order as per initialled draft.

-----