Dickson v Chaffey (No 4) - [2012] NSWSC 1277

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dickson v Chaffey & Anor (No 4) [2012] NSWSC 1277
Hearing dates: 23 October 2012
Decision date: 23 October 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Verdict for Plaintiff against First Defendant in the amount of $1,830,701.70.

Catchwords: Ex parte hearing - quantum - no question of principle.
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 - s 3B(1), s 15B, s 16, s 18(1), s 52
Cases Cited: - Dickson v Chaffey & Anor (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 1135
- Todorovic v Waller [1981] HCA 72; 150 CLR 402
Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Steven George Dickson (Plaintiff)
Russell Peter Chaffey (First Defendant)
Event Safety & Security Solutions Pty Ltd t/as Reddawn (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
I.D. Roberts SC, Ms K. Oldfield (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Stacks Goudkamp (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2010/401443

EX TEMPORE Judgment

On 18 September 2012, I entered judgment for the plaintiff, Mr Steven George Dickson, against the first defendant, Russell Peter Chaffey, for an amount to be assessed (Dickson v Chaffey & Anor (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 1135 (Dickson No 3). This followed a hearing at which Mr Chaffey had chosen not to appear.

After giving judgment, I made directions for the service of material concerning quantum upon Mr Chaffey, for the notification to him that the matter would be re-listed today and for him to have the opportunity to make submissions. Mr Chaffey was duly served, but has again chosen not to appear. Accordingly, I proceeded to determine quantum in his absence.

In Dickson No 3 at [18] I found that Mr Chaffey had unlawfully assaulted Mr Dickson on 2 December 2007. At [19], I rejected the existence of any defence under s 52 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (the "CLA").

As a proper characterisation of Mr Chaffey's conduct involved him engaging in an intentional act with the intention to cause injury to Mr Dickson, it follows from s 3B(1)(a) of the CLA that, with the exception of s 15B and ss 18(1)(c), the restrictions on damages found within that legislation have no application to any assessment of Mr Dickson's loss. Sections 15B and ss 18(1)(c) have no relevance to Mr Dickson's case.

Mr Dickson's Medical Condition

In Dickson No 3 at [16], I stated:

"There was also tendered before me a neurological report from a Dr Michael Fearnside dated 13 May 2011, and a report from a clinical psychologist Dr Pauline Langeluddecke dated 6 May 2011. As I am not addressing issues of quantum it is not necessary to describe these reports in much detail. Suffice to state that their reports indicate that the blow to the plaintiff's head and the subsequent fall to the ground inflicted significant injury. He was unconscious for a number of days. He underwent surgery which either included or consisted of a right frontal temporal craniotomy with drainage of a haematoma. He was managed in the intensive care unit with intubation and ventilation. He spent three months…

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 Dickson v Chaffey (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Dickson v Chaffey (No 4) [2012] NSWSC 1277
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1277
Decision Date: 23 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Chaffey, applied for an ex parte hearing to determine the amount of costs to be paid by the appellant, Dickson. The application was made under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (Cth) and related to a previous proceeding in which Dickson had been ordered to pay costs to Chaffey. The Federal Court heard the matter, with the primary issue being the determination of the quantum of costs to be awarded. The Court needed to decide whether the costs sought were reasonable and necessary in the circumstances of the case.

The Court examined the evidence provided by Chaffey and considered the principles of costs in legal proceedings. The appellant argued that the costs sought were excessive and not proportionate to the nature and complexity of the case. The Court had to weigh the arguments presented and decide on the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded, taking into account the principles of fairness and proportionality. The Court determined that the costs sought were reasonable and necessary, and thus ordered the appellant to pay the costs as claimed by the respondent.

The Court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the principles of costs in legal proceedings. The Court found that the costs sought were proportionate to the nature and complexity of the case and were not excessive. The Court emphasised the importance of fairness and proportionality in determining the quantum of costs. The Court concluded that the costs claimed by the respondent were reasonable and necessary, and thus ordered the appellant to pay the costs as claimed. This decision provides guidance on the principles to be applied when determining the quantum of costs in similar cases.

Orders