PARTIES: COX, Brian James v CROOKS, Steven Richard
TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA JURISDICTION: Original FILE NO/S: 121/1994 DELIVERED ON: 17 April 2000 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATES: 31 March 2000 JUDGMENT OF: Underwood J
CATCHWORDS:
Evidence - Admissibility and relevance - Opinion evidence - Expert opinion - In general - Estimation of legal costs not an organised branch of knowledge - Opinion evidence inadmissible.
Procedure - Costs - General rule costs follow the event - Costs of whole action - Where money paid into court or offer of compromise made - Other cases - Offer by letter expressed to be inclusive of costs - Distinguished from "Calderbank letter".
Plaintiff: G L Jones Defendant: C N Dockray Solicitors: Plaintiff: Douglas & Collins Defendant: C N Dockray
Judgment Number: [2000] TASSC 34 Number of Paragraphs: 27
Serial No 34/2000 File No 121/1994
BRIAN JAMES COX v STEVEN RICHARD CROOKS
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD J 17 April 2000
On 23 December 1999, reasons for judgment in Cox v Crooks [1999] TASSC 152 were handed down. I tentatively assessed the plaintiff's damages in the sum of $50,000, but postponed ordering entry of judgment in order to give counsel an opportunity to make further submissions with respect to (inter alia) any payments that may have been made pursuant to the provisions of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The hearing of the action resumed on 31 March 2000 and after hearing counsel, I ordered that judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for $50,000.
Mr Jones, counsel for the plaintiff, then sought an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's taxed costs of the action. Mr Dockray, counsel for the defendant, opposed the making of that order and submitted that:
· there should be no order as to costs; or
· there should be an order that the defendant pay a defined fraction of the plaintiff's taxed costs of the action; or
· there should be orders that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs up to 24 February 1999 and that thereafter the plaintiff pay the defendant's taxed costs of the action.
The plaintiff suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident. Liability was never put in issue. At an early stage the then solicitors for the defendant indicated to the solicitors for the plaintiff that the Motor…
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 Cox v Crooks (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Cox v Crooks (No 2) [2000] TASSC 34
Case
[2000] TASSC 34
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Brian James Cox, the plaintiff, initiated proceedings against Steven Richard Crooks, the defendant, seeking damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Liability for the accident was never contested. The plaintiff suffered injuries including a fractured nose, loss of smell and taste, and intermittent low back ache. He later developed disabling headaches and neck pain, which diminished his earning capacity. The primary issue at trial was whether the plaintiff's neck pain and headaches were causally related to the accident. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal link, and damages were assessed for only the initial injuries, immediate sequelae, permanent loss of smell, and low back pain. The plaintiff sought an order for the defendant to pay his taxed costs of the action. The defendant opposed this, arguing that the plaintiff failed on the substantial issue and that a previous offer by letter from the defendant's solicitor was more favourable to the plaintiff than the judgment. The court ruled that the offer by letter, which was inclusive of costs, was uncertain and could not be considered in determining costs, as it did not specify the portion attributable to damages. The court found that the defendant's failure to make a payment into court or a more precise offer of compromise deprived the plaintiff of a potential more favourable outcome. Consequently, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's taxed costs of the action.