Davis & Anor v Bound & Anor

Case [2011] QDC 82


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Davis & Anor v Bound & Anor [2011] QDC 82

PARTIES:

DENISE DAVIS
(First Plaintiff)

AND

GEOFFREY DAVIS
(Second Plaintiff)

AND

RAYMOND BOUND
(First Defendant)

AND

LOCHLAN-LEE BELFORD
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD4000/10

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 April 2011,  Amended on 12 May 2011 and 25 May 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 March 2011

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the first plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $260,469 and against the second defendant in the sum of $235,469.  Judgment for the second plaintiff against the first defendant and the second defendant in the sum of $12,000.  Order the first defendant pay the first plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be assessed on an indemnity basis and the second plaintiff’s costs to be assessed on a standard basis.  Order the second defendant pay both plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on a standard basis. 

CATCHWORDS:

PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY following murder of son – Default judgment- Assessment of damages – Inability to work fulltime-  Economic Loss – Defendant’s subsequent conduct- Aggravated damages - Loss of Consortium- indemnity costs.

Cases:

P v R [2010] QSC 139 - applied

Kirchner v ITT Water and Wastewater Ltd [2010] QSC – cited

Lebon & Lebon v Lake Placid Resort Pty Ltd & Ors [2000] QSC 049 – distinguished

State of New South Wales v Davies (1998) 43 NSWLR - cited

COUNSEL:

Roland O’Regan for the first and second plaintiffs

SOLICITORS:

Murphy Schmidt Solicitors for the first and second plaintiffs

Introduction

  1. On 6 January 2008 Wayne Williams was brutally murdered by the two defendants.  They were convicted of that murder on 21 December 2009.[1]  The first plaintiff was Wayne’s mother and the second plaintiff is the husband of the first plaintiff.  As a result of her involvement in the circumstances surrounding her son’s death, the first plaintiff has developed a significant psychological injury. She has sued the defendants for damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages.  The second plaintiff has brought a claim for loss of consortium and servitium.

    [1]Their appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was dismissed on 15 March 2001.

  1. The matter proceeded before me as an assessment of damages, the plaintiffs having obtained judgment against each of the defendants by order of Jones DCJ made on 11 February 2011. Neither defendant appeared on the hearing of the matter before me, although both had been appropriately served and notified of the hearing.

Injuries

  1. A report of Dr Foxcroft, psychiatrist, of 21 February 2010 was part of Exhibit 1.  Dr Foxcroft saw the first plaintiff on 10 February 2010 and set out the following relevant history which he obtained from her:

(i)Her son’s murder was brutal and he suffered horrific injuries.

(ii)As a result of her exposure to his murder, including her attending the murder scene and identifying his body at the morgue, she developed a significant psychiatric…

Continue reading Davis & Anor v Bound & Anor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Davis v Bound [2011] QDC 82
Case
[2011] QDC 82
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Davis & Anor v Bound & Anor, the plaintiffs sought damages for psychological injury arising from the murder of their son by the defendants. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiffs argued for compensation not only for the psychological harm caused by the murder but also for economic loss due to the inability to work full time, aggravated damages due to the defendants' subsequent conduct, and loss of consortium.

The court had to determine the appropriate compensation for the plaintiffs' psychological injury, the economic loss stemming from the plaintiffs' inability to work full time, and whether aggravated damages were applicable due to the defendants' actions. Additionally, the court had to assess the claim for loss of consortium and determine the costs to be awarded to the plaintiffs.

The court found that the first plaintiff was entitled to damages for the psychological injury, which was quantified at $260,469, and the second plaintiff was awarded $12,000 for their claim. The court also held that the first defendant was liable for economic loss, resulting in an award of $235,469 to the second plaintiff. The court awarded aggravated damages and loss of consortium to the plaintiffs. The court ordered the first defendant to pay the first plaintiff’s costs on an indemnity basis and the second plaintiff’s costs on a standard basis. The second defendant was ordered to pay both plaintiffs' costs on a standard basis.

The court made specific orders for the payment of damages and costs, reflecting the extent of the plaintiffs' suffering and the defendants' liability. The court's decision provides a clear framework for the compensation owed to the plaintiffs and the financial responsibilities of the defendants.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the first plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $260,469 and against the second defendant in the sum of $235,469. Judgment for the second plaintiff against the first defendant and the second defendant in the sum of $12,000. Order the first defendant pay the first plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be assessed on an indemnity basis and the second plaintiff’s costs to be assessed on a standard basis. Order the second defendant pay both plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on a standard basis.

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.