Crilly v Bumble Group Pty Limited t/a My Security

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Crilly v Bumble Group Pty Limited t/a My Security [2012] NSWDC 3
Hearing dates:27 January 2012 and 30 January 2012
Decision date: 30 January 2012
Before: Levy SC DCJ
Decision:

1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $356,759;

2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis unless otherwise entitled;

3. The exhibits may be returned;

4. Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: TORTS - assault - plaintiff received punch to the head from hotel security guard outside of hotel - resultant fall onto concrete pavement - brain damage from injuries: DAMAGES - assessment of claimed heads of damage
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 30.1, r 36.7(1)
Cases Cited: MBP (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic [1991] HCA 3; (1991) 171 CLR 657
NSW v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57
State of NSW v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133; (2000) 54 NSWLR 536
Zorom Enterprises Pty Ltd v Zabow & Ors [2007] NSWCA 106; (2007) 71 NSWLR 354
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Patrick Crilly (Plaintiff)
Bumble Group Pty Limited t/a My Security (Defendant)
Representation: Mr A McSpeddin (Plaintiff)
(No appearance for the defendant)
Stacks Goupkamp (Plaintiff)
(No appearance for the defendant)
File Number(s):2011/78191

Judgment

Table of Contents

Nature of case

[1] - [3]

Procedural issue

[6] - [8]

Facts

[9] - [30]

Plaintiff's background and circumstances

[10]

The assault

[1] - [15]

Injuries and treatment

[16] - [20]

Plaintiff's account of his ongoing problems

[21] - [23]

Medical and allied assessments

[24] - [28]

Statements evidencing post-assault problems

[29] - [30]

Assessment of damages

[31] - [58]

Plaintiff's probable life span

[32]

General damages

[33] - [35]

Interest on past general damages

[36] - [37]

Past economic loss

[38] - [40]

Interest on past economic loss

[41] - [42]

Future economic loss

[43] - [50]

Past loss of superannuation

[51]

Future equipment needs

[52] - [54]

Past out-of-pocket expenses

[55]

Aggravated damages

[56] - [57]

Summary of damages assessment

[58]

Disposition

[59]

Costs

[60]

Orders

[61]

Nature of case

  1. The plaintiff, Mr Patrick Crilly, brings this claim for damages for personal injury framed in assault, and alternatively in negligence, against the defendant, Bumble Group Pty Ltd, trading as My Security ACN 128 691 145.

  1. The claim arises from a fracas that took place at about 11pm on Saturday 20 December 2008 outside the Moore Park View Hotel at 853 South Dowling St Waterloo, in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Crilly v Bumble Group Pty Limited t/a My Security and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2012] NSWDC 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff sued the defendant, a company that operates a security service, following an incident in which the plaintiff was punched in the head by a security guard outside a hotel and subsequently fell, resulting in brain damage. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff claimed damages for the injuries sustained, including both economic and non-economic losses.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the defendant's security guard's actions constituted assault, and if so, whether the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of that assault. Additionally, the court needed to assess the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded, considering both past and future losses.

The court found that the security guard's actions did constitute assault, and the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of that assault. The court considered the severity of the injuries, the impact on the plaintiff's life, and the evidence provided regarding future care needs. After evaluating all the evidence, the court awarded the plaintiff $356,759 in damages. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, subject to any entitlement to a different basis of costs. Finally, the exhibits were to be returned, and the parties were granted liberty to apply for further orders if needed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $356,759;

2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis unless otherwise entitled;

3. The exhibits may be returned;

4. Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.