SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Castro v Hillery, Suncorp General Insurance Limited & Ors [2001] QSC 510 PARTIES: LOLINY CASTRO (by her next friend ANTONIO CASTRO)
(Plaintiff)
BRIAN ERNEST HILLERY
(First Defendant)
SUNCORP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED
(Second Defendant)
NORTH QUEENSLAND ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED
(Third Defendant)
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNT ISA
(Fourth Defendant)FILE NO/S: 11 of 1998 DIVISION: Trial PROCEEDING: Trial ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Townsville DELIVERED ON: 21 December 2001 DELIVERED AT: Cairns HEARING DATE: 3 September 2001 JUDGE: Jones J ORDER: 1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second and third defendants in the sum of $4,551,900.06 (the “judgment sum”) inclusive of interest and administration costs and charges.
2. Perpetual Trustees Queensland Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the administrator”) be appointed administrator pursuant to s14(1)(c) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 in relation to all financial matters relating to the amount hereinafter referred to as the trust sum.
3. The second defendant and the third defendant pay the judgment sum as follows:
(a) To WorkCover Queensland the sum of $288.050.71;
(b) to Messrs Conroy and Conroy, the solicitors for the litigation guardian, the sum of $603,270.00, for care that has been provided to date to the plaintiff and Annaliese Castro;
(c) to the appropriate recipient or recipients, any other statutory refund or refunds;
(d) as to the balance of the judgment sum (which balance sum is referred to herein as “the trust sum” and “the trust funds”), to the administrator.
4. In each instance, the receipt of the respective sum by the recipient or recipients identified in paragraph 2 hereof shall be sufficient discharge for the payment by the second defendant and the third defendant.
5. The plaintiff’s action against the fourth defendant is dismissed.
6. The second and third defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings to be assessed on the indemnity basis, such costs to include the costs of the plaintiff’s proceedings against the fourth defendant and to include reserved costs (if any).
7. The administrator be appointed manager to take possession of and control and manage all financial matters of the plaintiff relating to the trust funds only and to hold the same in trust for the plaintiff absolutely and apply such funds and the income thereon in such manner as the administrator thinks fit for the maintenance and benefit of the plaintiff.
8. The administrator have the power to invest the trust funds for and on behalf of the plaintiff pursuant to s51 of the Guardianship & Administration Act 2000.
9. The parties and the administrator be at liberty to apply in respect of this judgment and these orders as they may be advised, and the plaintiff, the litigation guardian and the administrator be at liberty to apply in respect of the administration of the said trust fund as they may be advised.
10. I grant leave to the second and third defendants to appeal against the order for costs.
CATCHWORDS: TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES…
Continue reading Castro v Hillery
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Castro v Hillery [2001] QSC 510
- Case
- [2001] QSC 510
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the first defendant was indeed negligent, as they were aware that the pedestrian crossing lights were not working and failed to adjust their speed accordingly. The court also held that Ms Castro was not contributorily negligent, as her actions did not contribute to the accident. The court further examined the extent of Ms Castro's injuries, including severe brain damage, tension pneumothorax, and fractures to her tibia and fibula. The court found that Ms Castro would require full-time care for the rest of her life and would be unable to care for her child.
In determining the appropriate compensation, the court awarded Ms Castro a total of $4,551,900.06 in damages, which included past and future care costs, loss of earnings, and other expenses. The court appointed an administrator to manage the trust funds for Ms Castro's benefit and granted leave to the second and third defendants to appeal against the order for costs. The plaintiff's action against the fourth defendant was dismissed.
This case highlights the importance of road safety measures and the responsibilities of drivers to adjust their speed and maintain a proper lookout, especially in areas with inoperative pedestrian crossing lights. It also underscores the need for appropriate compensation for victims of severe accidents who face long-term care and support.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second and third defendants in the sum of $4,551,900.06 (the “judgment sum”) inclusive of interest and administration costs and charges.
2. Perpetual Trustees Queensland Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the administrator”) be appointed administrator pursuant to s14(1)(c) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 in relation to all financial matters relating to the amount hereinafter referred to as the trust sum.
3. The second defendant and the third defendant pay the judgment sum as follows:
(a) To WorkCover Queensland the sum of $288.050.71;
(b) to Messrs Conroy and Conroy, the solicitors for the litigation guardian, the sum of $603,270.00, for care that has been provided to date to the plaintiff and Annaliese Castro;
(c) to the appropriate recipient or recipients, any other statutory refund or refunds;
(d) as to the balance of the judgment sum (which balance sum is referred to herein as “the trust sum” and “the trust funds”), to the administrator.
4. In each instance, the receipt of the respective sum by the recipient or recipients identified in paragraph 2 hereof shall be sufficient discharge for the payment by the second defendant and the third defendant.
5. The plaintiff’s action against the fourth defendant is dismissed.
6. The second and third defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings to be assessed on the indemnity basis, such costs to include the costs of the plaintiff’s proceedings against the fourth defendant and to include reserved costs (if any).
7. The administrator be appointed manager to take possession of and control and manage all financial matters of the plaintiff relating to the trust funds only and to hold the same in trust for the plaintiff absolutely and apply such funds and the income thereon in such manner as the administrator thinks fit for the maintenance and benefit of the plaintiff.
8. The administrator have the power to invest the trust funds for and on behalf of the plaintiff pursuant to s51 of the Guardianship & Administration Act 2000.
9. The parties and the administrator be at liberty to apply in respect of this judgment and these orders as they may be advised, and the plaintiff, the litigation guardian and the administrator be at liberty to apply in respect of the administration of the said trust fund as they may be advised.
10. I grant leave to the second and third defendants to appeal against the order for costs.
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.