JUDGE:	ZAMMIT J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 May 2019
DATE OF RULING:	17 June 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bucic v Arnej Pty Ltd (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 394

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interest – Delay in prosecuting case – Delay attributable to plaintiff’s legal representatives – Whether good cause shown to limit period of statutory interest – Interest awarded from date of issue – Supreme Court Act 1986 s 60; Penalty Interest Rates Act 1983 s 2.

DAMAGES – Interest – Whether allowable in respect of gratuitous services – Whether gratuitous services are ‘liabilities which do not carry interest’ – Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161 considered – Supreme Court Act 1986 s 60(3)(a).

COSTS – Judgment for plaintiff – Whether costs should be awarded on standard or indemnity basis – Offer of compromise on the day fixed for trial – Costs ordered on indemnity basis – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 r 26.08.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J B Richards QC with Mr D Dealehr	Carbone Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr S A Smith SC	Moray & Agnew

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

This ruling assumes familiarity with my principal reasons for judgment in this proceeding delivered on 20 May 2019.[1] I there found the defendant liable under Part IIA of the Wrongs Act 1958 for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff on 30 October 2007. I allowed damages in the sum of $1,043,000, with general damages of $300,000, and special damages of $743,000.
[1]Bucic v Arnej Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 330 (‘Principal Reasons’).

The damages I awarded the plaintiff may be summarised as follows:

Past	Future	Total
General damages[2]	$150,000	$150,000	$300,000
Economic loss	$250,000	$225,000	$475,000
Gratuitous care	$125,000	$110,000	$235,000
Medical expenses	$8,000	$25,000	$33,000
$533,000	$510,000	$1,043,000

[2]I allowed a global amount of $300,000 for general damages. However, the purposes of allowing interest, I consider it appropriate to divide that sum into two equal halves to represent past and future.

This ruling addresses three questions agitated by the parties. The first is whether I should allow damages in the nature of interest and, if so, from when. The second is whether I should exercise my discretion to refuse to allow damages in the nature of interest on any of the heads of damage set out above. The third is whether, in conformity with the rule that costs follow the event, the defendant should pay the plaintiff’s costs on a standard or on an indemnity basis.

For the reasons that follow, I will allow interest on $533,000 (past damages) from 26 October 2015 (the date of the writ) until 20 May 2019, and will ask the parties to bring in the new calculations. I will also order that the defendant pay the…

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 Bucic v Arnej Pty Ltd (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Bucic v Arnej Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] VSC 394
Case: [2019] VSC 394
Decision Date: 17 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bucic v Arnej Pty Ltd (No 2), the plaintiff sought damages for professional services rendered and interest on those damages. The defendant, Arnej Pty Ltd, contested the amount of interest claimed by the plaintiff. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to statutory interest on the damages claimed, considering the delay in prosecuting the case, which was partly attributable to the plaintiff's legal representatives. Additionally, the court had to determine if interest was allowable in respect of the gratuitous services provided by the plaintiff.

The court held that the delay in prosecuting the case was not entirely attributable to the plaintiff's legal representatives, and thus, the plaintiff was not precluded from claiming interest under section 60 of the Supreme Court Act 1986. The court awarded interest from the date of issue of the proceedings, as provided by section 60(3)(a) of the Act. The court also considered whether the gratuitous services provided by the plaintiff were 'liabilities which do not carry interest', as per the decision in Griffiths v Kerkemeyer, and concluded that such services did not fall under this category. Consequently, the court awarded interest on these services.

The court further addressed the issue of costs, determining that the defendant had made an offer of compromise on the day fixed for trial. Under rule 26.08 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, the plaintiff was awarded costs on an indemnity basis. The final orders of the court included the award of damages with interest and costs on an indemnity basis to the plaintiff.

Orders