Dimitrov v Campbell

[2019] ACTSC 253

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Dimitrov v Campbell  

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 253

Hearing Date:

6 September 2019

DecisionDate:

6 September 2019

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

I make orders 1 to 5 in the application in proceedings dated 25 July 2019.

Catchwords:

PERSONAL INJURY – DAMAGES – Assessment of damages – Compromise – Approval of settlement sum – motor vehicle accident – severe brain injuries suffered by the plaintiff

Parties:

Alexander Dimitrov (Plaintiff)

Christopher Campbell (First Defendant)

Mellanie Jones (aka Mellanie Freeman) (Second Defendant)

Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance (Third Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

A Black SC (Plaintiff)

J Wong (First, Second and Third Defendant)

Solicitors

Maliganis Edwards Johnson (Plaintiff)

Sparke Helmore Lawyers (First, Second and Third Defendant)

File Numbers:

SC 214 of 2016

ELKAIM J:

1. The plaintiff was born in 1995. On 1 June 2013, when he was 18 years of age, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he suffered very severe brain injuries.

1. These injuries will affect every facet of his future life and may also, in combination with other elements of his history, have a significant effect on his future life expectancy.

1. The plaintiff did not have an easy life even before the accident. I do not need to go into detail here other than to say that he had mental health problems, which were affecting his capacity to live a normal life.

1. Nevertheless the plaintiff was apparently making a significant effort, primarily through employment, to give himself the best opportunity to be a productive person.

1. Although the facts of the accident, at first sight, suggest the plaintiff played no part in the cause of the accident, on closer examination it appears that liability may not be so clear and that there is a very realistic possibility of a significant finding of contributory negligence.

1. In addition, although on some of the expert evidence, in particular from Dr Buckley, there is potentially a very large claim for future care, that claim suffers significant practical problems, because the plaintiff may well refuse to accept the care.

1. I have read the two confidential advices prepared by Mr Anthony Black SC, dated 15 February 2018 and 23 July 2019 respectively. Mr Black, after taking into account the above issues, and others, has recommended the approval of the settlement.

1. Because of the liability and care issues, the matter clearly calls for compromise in the assessment of damages. I agree with the recommendation made by Mr Black and accordingly I approve the settlement.

1. I make orders 1 to 5 in the application in proceedings dated 25 July 2019.

I certify that the preceding nine [9] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Elkaim.

Associate:

Date: 6 September 2019