SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Goode v Thompson and Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2002] QCA 138
PARTIES:
CHRISTOPHER DANIEL GOODE (by his litigation guardian, TRACEY ANNE GOODE)
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
YVONNE MARY THOMPSON
(first defendant/not a party to the appeal)
SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED
(formerly Suncorp General Insurance Limited)
ACN 075 695 966
(second defendant/appellant)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 6802 of 2001
SC No 5829 of 1999DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
19 April 2002
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
26 March 2002
JUDGE:
Davies JA, Mullins and Holmes JJ
Judgment of the CourtORDER:
1. Para 1 of the judgment of Ambrose J dated 2 July 2001 be varied by deleting the sum of $3,837,058.48 and inserting in lieu the sum of $3,760,750.18.
2. The appeal otherwise be dismissed.
3. The respondent repay to the appellant the sum of $76,308.30 together with interest at 5.2% per annum from 26 July 2001 to the date of repayment.
4. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES – PAIN AND SUFFERING – whether the assessment of general damages was manifestly excessive
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – LEGAL PRINCIPLES – whether the discount rate for contingencies of 15% in calculating future economic loss was insufficient
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – VOLUNTARY OBLIGATIONS – whether the assessment of damages for future care was manifestly excessive – whether the agency fee payable to a commercial provider of care services is part of the market cost of future care services anticipated to be provided by relatives of the injured plaintiff
Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 55D
Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 16(1), s 48
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161, applied Grincelis v House (1998) 84 FCR 190, applied Grincelis v House (2000) 201 CLR 321, applied Kars v Kars (1995) Aust Torts Reports 81-369, applied Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327, applied
COUNSEL:
M Grant-Taylor SC for the appellant
SC Williams QC, with RJ Lynch, for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited for the appellant
McInnes Wilson for the respondent
THE COURT: The respondent, who was born on 23 March 1984, was 12½ years old when he suffered severe injuries when struck by a motor vehicle insured by the appellant. The appellant appeals from various aspects of the assessment of damages undertaken after the trial of the action at which it was found that liability for the accident should be apportioned, as to 80%, to the driver of the motor…
Continue reading Goode v Thompson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Goode v Thompson [2002] QCA 138
- Case
- [2002] QCA 138
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the initial assessment of general damages for pain and suffering was manifestly excessive, whether the discount rate of 15% for contingencies in calculating future economic loss was sufficient, and whether the damages for future care were manifestly excessive, including whether the agency fee payable to a commercial care provider should be considered part of the market cost of future care services anticipated to be provided by relatives.
The court found that the initial assessment of general damages for pain and suffering was not manifestly excessive. However, the court determined that the discount rate of 15% was insufficient. As a result, the discount rate was adjusted, which reduced the amount awarded for future economic loss. Furthermore, the court held that the assessment of damages for future care was manifestly excessive, and that the agency fee should not be included in the market cost of care services anticipated to be provided by relatives.
The court varied the judgment by reducing the total damages awarded by approximately $76,000, and ordered the respondent to repay this sum to the appellant with interest. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Para 1 of the judgment of Ambrose J dated 2 July 2001 be varied by deleting the sum of $3,837,058.48 and inserting in lieu the sum of $3,760,750.18.
2. The appeal otherwise be dismissed.
3. The respondent repay to the appellant the sum of $76,308.30 together with interest at 5.2% per annum from 26 July 2001 to the date of repayment.
4. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal to be assessed.
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.