Corlett v Mifsud - [2004] QSC 35

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Corlett v Mifsud [2004] QSC 035

PARTIES:  REBEKAH LEE CORLETT
(Plaintiff)
v
MARGARET MIFSUD
(Defendant)

FILE NO: S120/02(Mackay)

DIVISION: Trial Division

DELIVERED ON: 2 March 2004

DELIVERED AT: Mackay

HEARING DATES: 2 March 2004 in Mackay

JUDGE: Dutney J

ORDERS:Judgement for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY EIGHT DOLLARS AND FIFTY FOUR CENTS ($134,528.54)
CATCHWORDS: MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT – PERSONAL INJURIES – QUANTUM ONLY – where plaintiff suffered whiplash – where plaintiff suffers ongoing neck and back pain and headaches

Wrongs Act 1936 (SA), s. 35A

Varnas v Peake [2001] SASC 330 (23 October 2001), discussed
Hardy & Hardy v Barberien [2003] SADC 51 (8 April 2003), discussed

COUNSEL:Mr GF Crow for the plaintiff
Mr RN Alldridge for the defendant

SOLICITORS: Macrossan and Amiet for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson defendant

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Adelaide on 18 July 2000. Liability for the injury is admitted by the defendant and the only issue before me is quantum.

Because the accident occurred in Adelaide the assessment of quantum is governed by the provisions of the Wrongs Act 1936 (SA) and in particular by section 35A of that Act.

Insofar as it is relevant to these proceedings s. 35A of the Wrongs Act provides:

“(1) Notwithstanding any other law, where damages are assessed for or in respect of an injury arising from a motor accident the following provisions apply:
(a)no damages shall be awarded for non-economic loss unless –
(i)the injured person’s ability to lead a normal life was significantly impaired by the injury for a period of at least 7 days; or
(ii)the injured person has reasonably incurred medical expenses of at least the prescribed minimum in connection with the injured person’s injury; and

(b)if damages are to be awarded for non-economic loss, they shall be assessed as follows:
(i)the injured person’s total non-economic loss shall be assigned a numerical value on a scale running from 0 to 60 (the greater the severity of the non-economic loss, the higher the number); and
(ii)the damages to be awarded for non-economic loss shall then be calculated by multiplying the prescribed amount by the number assigned under subparagraph (i); and

…
(c)if the injured person was incapacitated for work, no damages shall be awarded for loss of earning capacity in respect of the first week of the incapacity; and

...
(g)no damages shall be awarded –
(i)to allow for recompense of gratuitous services except services of a parent, spouse or child of the injured person; or
(ii)to allow for the reimbursement of expenses, other than reasonable out of pocket expenses, voluntarily incurred, or to be voluntarily incurred, by a person rendering gratuitous services to the injured person; and

(h)damages awarded to allow for the recompense of gratuitous services of a parent, spouse or child shall not exceed four times State average weekly earnings; and

...
(k)no interest shall be awarded…

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 Corlett v Mifsud

Details

AGLC: Corlett v Mifsud [2004] QSC 35
Case: [2004] QSC 35
Decision Date: 2 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of Corlett v Mifsud was heard, where Rebekah Lee Corlett, the plaintiff, sought compensation from Margaret Mifsud, the defendant, for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Adelaide on 18 July 2000. The liability for the injury was admitted by the defendant, and the court was tasked with determining the quantum of damages. The assessment of damages was governed by the provisions of the Wrongs Act 1936 (SA), particularly section 35A.

The court had to decide on the appropriate compensation for the plaintiff's ongoing neck and back pain, headaches, and the impact on her ability to work and perform household tasks. The plaintiff claimed that she could no longer work as a bar attendant due to her injuries and that she required assistance from her partner for daily chores. The court also considered the potential future loss of income and additional medical expenses due to the plaintiff's condition.

The court assessed the plaintiff's non-economic loss, considering her age, the chronic nature of her pain, and the impact on her daily life and enjoyment of life. The court attributed a numerical value of 15 to the plaintiff's non-economic loss, resulting in damages of $23,700.00. For economic loss, the court calculated the past loss of earnings from bar work, amounting to $17,100.00, and future loss of earnings, estimated at $30,000.00. Gratuitous care provided by the plaintiff's partner and mother was also considered, with a lump sum of $2,500.00 awarded for past care and $35,136.00 for future paid domestic assistance. Special damages, future medical expenses, and past agreed special damages were also included in the total compensation.

In conclusion, the court awarded judgement for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY EIGHT DOLLARS AND FIFTY FOUR CENTS ($134,528.54).

Orders