Farnham v Pruden

Case [2016] QCA 18

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Farnham v Pruden & Anor [2016] QCA 18

PARTIES:

JANE MAREE FARNHAM
(applicant)
v
DEBBIE JUNE PRUDEN
(first respondent)
RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED
ACN 009 704 152
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6415 of 2015
DC No 70 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Mackay – [2015] QDC 141

DELIVERED ON:

12 February 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 October 2015

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The time for filing the application for leave to appeal is extended to 21 July 2015.

2.   The application for leave to appeal is refused.

3.   The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs, of and incidental to the application including the reserved costs of the application for extension of time for leave to appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES – where the applicant was injured when a car collided with the rear of her vehicle and that collision pushed her car into the path of an oncoming car, which also collided with her vehicle – where the applicant was employed as a community support worker – where the applicant was travelling to the home of another person where she intended to carry out the duties of her employment – where the applicant experienced a number of stressors in her life prior to sustaining her injuries as a result of the car incident – where the central question at trial was whether the assessment of damages was to be made in accordance with the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) or the common law – where the learned trial judge held that the Civil Liability Act provisions did apply and assessed the damages in the total sum of $47,389.75 – where the learned trial judge held that no damages for future economic loss, nor the loss of capacity to develop other careers, should be awarded – whether an appeal is necessary to correct a substantial injustice – whether there is a reasonable argument that there is an error to be corrected

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 5(1)(b)
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32(1), s 34(1)(c), s 35, s 108

Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538; [1940] HCA 45, cited
Ballandis v Swebbs[2015] QCA 76, followed
Favelle Mort Ltd v Murray (1975) 133 CLR 580; [1976] HCA 13, considered
Kelly v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 216; [2004] HCA 12, followed
King v Parsons [2006] 2 Qd R 122; [2006] QCA 49, cited
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles(2001) 52 NSWLR…

Continue reading Farnham v Pruden

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Farnham v Pruden [2016] QCA 18
Case
[2016] QCA 18
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Farnham v Pruden was a case where the applicant sought damages for injuries sustained in a car accident where her vehicle was rear-ended by another car, pushing her vehicle into the path of an oncoming car. The applicant was a community support worker travelling to the home of another person to perform her employment duties at the time of the accident. The applicant experienced several stressors in her life prior to the accident, which became a factor in the trial. The central issue in the trial was whether the damages assessment should be made in accordance with the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) or the common law. The trial judge found that the provisions of the Civil Liability Act applied and awarded the applicant $47,389.75 in damages. The judge ruled out any damages for future economic loss and loss of capacity to develop other careers.

The court had to determine if the appeal was necessary to correct a substantial injustice and if there was a reasonable argument that there was an error to be corrected. The learned trial judge was correct in finding that there was no demonstrated future economic loss, based on the same evidence and findings that the applicant had no impairment of her working capacity by any accident-related consequence of injury. The trial judge concluded that there was no principled basis upon which to conclude that there was any future economic loss.

No proposed grounds of appeal involved an error on the part of the learned trial judge. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused, with costs. The orders included an extension of time for filing the application for leave to appeal to 21 July 2015, refusal of the application for leave to appeal, and the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs, of and incidental to the application including the reserved costs of the application for extension of time for leave to appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time for filing the application for leave to appeal is extended to 21 July 2015.

2. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

3. The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs, of and incidental to the application including the reserved costs of the application for extension of time for leave to appeal, to be assessed on the 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

For the same reasons the learned trial judge was, in my respectful view, correct to find that there was no demonstrated future economic loss. That the basis was the same evidence and finding was recognised by the learned trial judge:[103]“Thus, as in this case on my acceptance of the relevant medical evidence that [Ms Farnham] has no impairment of her working capacity by any accident-related consequence of injury, there is no principled basis upon which to conclude that there is any future economic loss.”[103]Reasons [73].Conclusion and orders None of the proposed grounds of appeal have been demonstrated to involve an error on the part of the learned trial judge. The application for leave to appeal should be refused with costs. I would propose the following orders:1.The time for filing the application for leave to appeal is extended to 21 July 2015.2.The application for leave to appeal is refused.3.The applicant is to pay the respondents’ costs, of and incidental to the application including the reserved costs of the application for extension of time for leave to appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.