Gibbings-Johns v Corliss - [2010] QSC 49

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gibbings-Johns v Corliss [2010] QSC 49

PARTIES:

TERRY EDWARD GIBBINGS-JOHNS

Plaintiff

And

DENNIS BRUCE CORLISS

Defendant

FILE NO/S:

S76 of 2008

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

24 February 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Supreme Court Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

2 – 3 February 2010

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

There will be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $196,152.00

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where plaintiff suffered serious injury to the left eye – where claims made for past economic loss, impairment of future earning capacity, future treatment costs and special damages – where plaintiff denied claim for aggravated and exemplary damages

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 62(e)

Commerical Union Assurance Co of Australia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389

Giller v Procopets [2008] VSCA 236

Hick v Frisby and Anor [2008] QSC 161

Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170

COUNSEL:

G. Crow for the plaintiff

M. Grant-Taylor SC for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Macrossan & Amiet for the plaintiff

Suthers Lawyers for the defendant

[1] McMeekin J: Terry Edward Gibbings-Johns claims damages for a penetrating injury to his left eye. He alleges that he was injured when a pot glass was thrown at him by the defendant, Dennis Bruce Corliss, early in the morning of Saturday, 7^th May 2005.

[2] Both liability and quantum are in issue.

[3] The defendant denies throwing the glass or indeed any object. There is substantial dispute as to what occurred.

[4] There is no doubt that the plaintiff suffered an injury to his eye in the course of the events of the night. Whilst there is no onus on the defendant he submits that there are alternative possible mechanisms of injury which explain the injury.

The Competing Versions

[5] The defendant is and was at the relevant time the publican conducting the Grand Hotel at Childers. He and the plaintiff had known each other for some time before the night in question. He had barred the plaintiff from entering his hotel some months before. The precise reason was in dispute but the salient point is that there was bad feeling between the two men.

[6] The relevant events occurred at about 1am or a little later on the Saturday morning. The police arrived at 1.15am and all witnesses with any reliability of recollection agreed they arrived within minutes of the relevant events occurring.

[7] The plaintiff had commenced drinking at the Childers Hotel at around 8pm to 9pm the night before. He left that hotel after closing and was heading home. At this stage he was heavily intoxicated.

[8] His path home took him past the Grand Hotel. What precisely then happened is the subject of conflicting accounts.

[9] The plaintiff claims that he saw the defendant through a window of his hotel and…

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 Gibbings-Johns v Corliss

Details

AGLC: Gibbings-Johns v Corliss [2010] QSC 49
Case: [2010] QSC 49
Decision Date: 24 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Gibbings-Johns v Corliss, the plaintiff sought compensation for injuries sustained during an altercation that resulted in significant damage to their left eye. The defendant, who was responsible for the incident, was sued for various forms of loss and damages, including past economic loss, impairment of future earning capacity, future treatment costs, and special damages. The plaintiff did not pursue aggravated or exemplary damages. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate measure of damages for these injuries, considering both the severity and the implications for the plaintiff's future.

The court examined the principles governing the assessment of damages for personal injuries, focusing on the extent of the harm and its foreseeable consequences. In particular, the court considered the plaintiff's past economic losses, which included medical expenses and lost income. It also assessed the impairment of the plaintiff's future earning capacity, taking into account the long-term effects of the eye injury. Furthermore, the court evaluated the future treatment costs that the plaintiff might incur and the special damages claimed, ensuring that the compensation was just and reflected the true impact of the injuries.

Upon careful deliberation, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the various damages claimed. The assessment was based on the evidence provided and the legal standards applicable to such cases. The court determined that the total amount of damages payable was $196,152.00. This sum was intended to cover the economic and non-economic losses suffered by the plaintiff, providing a comprehensive remedy for the injuries sustained.

Orders

Orders of the court

There will be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $196,152.00

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.

CITATION:	Gibbings-Johns v Corliss [2010] QSC 49
PARTIES:	TERRY EDWARD GIBBINGS-JOHNS Plaintiff And DENNIS BRUCE CORLISS Defendant
FILE NO/S:	S76 of 2008
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	24 February 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Supreme Court Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	2 – 3 February 2010
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDER:	There will be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $196,152.00
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where plaintiff suffered serious injury to the left eye – where claims made for past economic loss, impairment of future earning capacity, future treatment costs and special damages – where plaintiff denied claim for aggravated and exemplary damages Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 62(e) Commerical Union Assurance Co of Australia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 Giller v Procopets [2008] VSCA 236 Hick v Frisby and Anor [2008] QSC 161 Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170
COUNSEL:	G. Crow for the plaintiff M. Grant-Taylor SC for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Macrossan & Amiet for the plaintiff Suthers Lawyers for the defendant