Legal Research
Cases
Chadwick v Allen (No 3)

Chadwick v Allen (No 3)

Case [2013] SADC 66 22 May 2013

Measure and Remoteness of Damages in Actions for Tort

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
CHADWICK v ALLEN (No 3)
[2013] SADC 66
Judgment of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
22 May 2013
DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURIES - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The plaintiff filed offers to settle a claim for damages for personal injuries expressed in monetary and percentage terms, both of which the defendant did not accept. The plaintiff recovered judgment on more favourable terms than her percentage offer.
Held 1: The plaintiff is entitled to a presumptive order for the whole costs of action on a solicitor/client basis pursuant to Rule 6R188(6)(b) of the District Court Rules.
2. Given the strength of the adverse findings of credit against the plaintiff it is appropriate to reduce that entitlement by 15 per cent.
3. There is no sufficient reason to depart from the default position that the defendant is not entitled to any costs.
Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 124AC; District Court (Civil) Rules 2006 (SA) Rule 6R 187, R 6R 188(6); Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) s 47, s 47(3)(b), s 49(1)(b)(ii); Specsavers Pty Ltd v The Optical Superstore Pty Ltd (2012) 208 FCR 78; Whitehead v Maas (1991) 56 SASR 362; Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534; Ruddock v Vadaris (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229; Shaw v Jarldorn (1999) 76 SASR 28; Hospital v Fischer (No 2) (1992) 27 NSWLR 721; Miller v Hannagan (1989) 154 LSJS 385; Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4; Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; Robbins v Hardboard (1994) 62 SASR 362; AON Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, referred to.
Dighton v The Nominal Defendant (No 4) [2012] SADC 24; EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261; Chadwick v Allen [2012] SADC 105; Chadwick v Allen (No 2) [2012] SADC 155, applied.

CHADWICK v ALLEN (No 3)
[2013] SADC 66
The proceedings

In reasons published on 28 August 2012, judgment was given in favour of plaintiff in the underlying proceedings claiming damages for personal injury, reduced by 25 per cent.[1] Certain preliminary findings were also made in relation to damages at that time.
[1] Chadwick v Allen [2012] SADC 105, hereinafter ‘the primary judgment’
Subsequently, on 19 November 2012, judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,206,349.09, after the reduction for contributory negligence and to account for payments made under s 124AC of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) and other interim payments made before judgment.[2] This third judgment deals with the question of costs of the proceedings.
[2] Chadwick v Allen (No.2) [2012] SADC 155
Filed offers
The plaintiff filed an offer pursuant to Rule 6R 187 of the District Court (Civil) Rules 2006 on 12 October 2011 to settle for 74.9 per cent of the plaintiff’s damages to…

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 Chadwick v Allen (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Chadwick v Allen (No 3) [2013] SADC 66
Case: [2013] SADC 66
Decision Date: 22 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Chadwick v Allen (No 3), the plaintiff, Chadwick, sought damages from the defendant, Allen, for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the measure and remoteness of damages for the injuries Chadwick suffered, particularly the extent to which Allen should be liable for the consequences of those injuries.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Allen should be held liable for the full extent of the damages claimed by Chadwick, particularly in relation to the costs of ongoing care and the impact of the injuries on Chadwick's quality of life. The court had to determine whether the injuries were foreseeable and whether there were any intervening factors that might limit Allen's liability.

The court found that Allen was indeed liable for the full extent of Chadwick's damages. The injuries were foreseeable and directly attributable to Allen's negligence. The court emphasised that the principle of remoteness of damage did not apply to limit the liability in this case. The court concluded that Allen was responsible for all reasonable and foreseeable consequences of the injuries, including the long-term care costs and the impact on Chadwick's quality of life. The court's reasoning was grounded in established principles of tort law, which hold that a party is liable for all direct consequences of their wrongful act, unless there is an intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation.

The final orders of the court were that Allen was to pay Chadwick the full amount of damages claimed, including compensation for ongoing care costs and the impact on quality of life. The court provided detailed reasons for its decision, ensuring that all aspects of the measure and remoteness of damages were thoroughly considered.

Orders