Coconut v Coconut - [2002] QSC 369

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Coconut v Coconut & Anor [2002] QSC 369

PARTIES: WARREN MICHAEL COCONUT
(applicant)
v
GREGORY COCONUT and JERRY COCONUT (deceased)
(respondents)

FILE NO/S: SC 10969 of 2000

DIVISION: Trial Division

DELIVERED ON: 13 November 2002

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 14 August 2001, 27 October 2002

JUDGE: Philippides J

ORDERS:
That the Estate of Jerry Coconut (deceased) pay to the applicant Warren Michael Coconut the sum of $80,000 and the respondent Gregory Coconut pay to the applicant Warren Michael Coconut the sum of $72,000 by way of compensation for injuries suffered by the applicant by reason of the offence for which the respondents were convicted on 1 June 1998;1.

That the amounts awarded to the applicant be paid by the respondents to the Public Trustee whose receipt for such money shall be sufficient discharge;2.

That the applicant’s costs be taxed as between solicitor and own client unless otherwise authorised or agreed to by the Public Trustee; 3.

That the Public Trustee pay to the solicitor for the applicant the said taxed or authorised costs on a solicitor own client basis out of any moneys received from the respondents, or any other person, pursuant to this order;4.

That the Public Trustee hold the balance of such moneys as a separate trust fund on trust for the applicant.5.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – COMPENSATION – where respondents convicted of attempted murder and grievous bodily harm – where applicant struck repeatedly on the head – where applicant suffered severe head injuries – where applicant sought compensation for pain and suffering and nervous shock – where compensation assessed under
s 663B(1) of the Criminal Code – assessment of amount to be paid – joint offenders – whether payment may be ordered against each offender – where subsequent assault contributed to injuries – whether compensation can be apportioned between assaults – whether applicant contributed to own injuries.

Criminal Code (Qld), Chapter 65A, s 663A,
s 663A(b), s 663AA, s 663AA(1),(2) and (3), s 663B(1) and
s 663B(2)
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, Part III, s 46(2)
Limitation of Actions Act 1974, s 5, s 10(1)(d)
Workers’ Compensation Act 1916, s 14(1)(C), s 14(1)(C)(a)
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, s 167, s 167(1)
WorkCover Queensland Regulation 1997, Schedule 2

Dunbar v Carapellotti & Anor [2001] QSC 101, SC No 2418 of 1995, 9/04/01, considered
Ford v Ford DC No 1634 of 2002, 3/5/02, considered
Freeman v Grahame & Ors [2001] 2 Qd R 406, applied
Hedge v Suncorp Insurance & Finance Appeal No 4911 of 1996, 7/11/97, considered
Hendry v Llorente [2001] 2 Qd R 415, cited
Jacob v Roberts [2002] QCA 87, Appeal No 10194 of 2001, 21/03/02, cited
Jones v Coolwell [2001] QSC 130, SC No 10969 of 2000, 4/05/01, considered
Josiah v Patterson SC No 10846 of 1999, 10/12/99, considered
McClintock v Jones (1995) 79 A Crim R 238, cited
Mott v Boggan & Fire and All Risks Insurance Co Ltd [1998] QSC…

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 Coconut v Coconut

Details

AGLC: Coconut v Coconut [2002] QSC 369
Case: [2002] QSC 369
Decision Date: 13 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Coconut v Coconut, the applicant, Warren Michael Coconut, sought compensation for injuries sustained from two separate assaults by the respondents, Jerry Coconut (deceased) and Gregory Coconut. The applicants were convicted of attempted murder and grievous bodily harm. Warren Michael Coconut suffered severe head injuries in the attacks and sought compensation for pain and suffering and nervous shock. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The legal issues before the court involved the assessment of compensation under section 663B(1) of the Criminal Code. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the compensation could be apportioned between the two assaults and whether the applicant contributed to his own injuries. Additionally, the court considered whether payment could be ordered against each offender and if compensation could be apportioned between the joint offenders.

The court concluded that compensation could be apportioned between the two assaults based on the contribution of each to the applicant's injuries. The court held that while the applicant did not contribute to his own injuries, the compensation could still be apportioned between the joint offenders. The court awarded the applicant compensation from each respondent, taking into account the extent of their respective contributions to the injuries. The court ordered the Estate of Jerry Coconut (deceased) to pay $80,000 and Gregory Coconut to pay $72,000. The compensation was to be paid to the Public Trustee, who would hold the funds in a separate trust for the applicant. The court also ordered that the applicant's costs be taxed as between solicitor and client, with the Public Trustee paying the solicitor's costs from the funds received.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the Estate of Jerry Coconut (deceased) pay to the applicant Warren Michael Coconut the sum of $80,000 and the respondent Gregory Coconut pay to the applicant Warren Michael Coconut the sum of $72,000 by way of compensation for injuries suffered by the applicant by reason of the offence for which the respondents were convicted on 1 June 1998;1.

That the amounts awarded to the applicant be paid by the respondents to the Public Trustee whose receipt for such money shall be sufficient discharge;2.

That the applicant’s costs be taxed as between solicitor and own client unless otherwise authorised or agreed to by the Public Trustee; 3.

That the Public Trustee pay to the solicitor for the applicant the said taxed or authorised costs on a solicitor own client basis out of any moneys received from the respondents, or any other person, pursuant to this order;4.

That the Public Trustee hold the balance of such moneys as a separate trust fund on trust for the applicant.5.

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.

CITATION:		Coconut v Coconut & Anor [2002] QSC 369
PARTIES:		WARREN MICHAEL COCONUT (applicant) v GREGORY COCONUT and JERRY COCONUT (deceased) (respondents)
FILE NO/S:		SC 10969 of 2000
DIVISION:		Trial Division
DELIVERED ON:		13 November 2002
DELIVERED AT:		Brisbane
HEARING DATE:		14 August 2001, 27 October 2002
JUDGE:		Philippides J
ORDERS:		That the Estate of Jerry Coconut (deceased) pay to the applicant Warren Michael Coconut the sum of $80,000 and the respondent Gregory Coconut pay to the applicant Warren Michael Coconut the sum of $72,000 by way of compensation for injuries suffered by the applicant by reason of the offence for which the respondents were convicted on 1 June 1998;1. That the amounts awarded to the applicant be paid by the respondents to the Public Trustee whose receipt for such money shall be sufficient discharge;2. That the applicant’s costs be taxed as between solicitor and own client unless otherwise authorised or agreed to by the Public Trustee; 3. That the Public Trustee pay to the solicitor for the applicant the said taxed or authorised costs on a solicitor own client basis out of any moneys received from the respondents, or any other person, pursuant to this order;4. That the Public Trustee hold the balance of such moneys as a separate trust fund on trust for the applicant.5.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – COMPENSATION – where respondents convicted of attempted murder and grievous bodily harm – where applicant struck repeatedly on the head – where applicant suffered severe head injuries – where applicant sought compensation for pain and suffering and nervous shock – where compensation assessed under s 663B(1) of the Criminal Code – assessment of amount to be paid – joint offenders – whether payment may be ordered against each offender – where subsequent assault contributed to injuries – whether compensation can be apportioned between assaults – whether applicant contributed to own injuries. Criminal Code (Qld), Chapter 65A, s 663A, s 663A(b), s 663AA, s 663AA(1),(2) and (3), s 663B(1) and s 663B(2) Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, Part III, s 46(2) Limitation of Actions Act 1974, s 5, s 10(1)(d) Workers’ Compensation Act 1916, s 14(1)(C), s 14(1)(C)(a) WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, s 167, s 167(1) WorkCover Queensland Regulation 1997, Schedule 2 Dunbar v Carapellotti & Anor [2001] QSC 101, SC No 2418 of 1995, 9/04/01, considered Ford v Ford DC No 1634 of 2002, 3/5/02, considered Freeman v Grahame & Ors [2001] 2 Qd R 406, applied Hedge v Suncorp Insurance & Finance Appeal No 4911 of 1996, 7/11/97, considered Hendry v Llorente [2001] 2 Qd R 415, cited Jacob v Roberts [2002] QCA 87, Appeal No 10194 of 2001, 21/03/02, cited Jones v Coolwell [2001] QSC 130, SC No 10969 of 2000, 4/05/01, considered Josiah v Patterson SC No 10846 of 1999, 10/12/99, considered McClintock v Jones (1995) 79 A Crim R 238, cited Mott v Boggan & Fire and All Risks Insurance Co Ltd [1998] QSC…