Grills v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No 3) - [2014] NSWSC 349

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Grills v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 349
Hearing dates: In chambers
Decision date: 28 March 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
Parties to bring in final orders.
All exhibits and subpoenaed material may be returned forthwith; any exhibits returned must be retained intact by the party or person that produced the material until the expiry of the time to file an appeal, or until any appeal has been determined.

Catchwords: COSTS - future care calculations - form of orders
Cases Cited: Grills v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1951
Category: Costs
Parties: Adam Lee Grills (Plaintiff)
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd
ABN 98 000 893 667 (First Defendant)
State of New South Wales (Second Defendant)
QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited (Third Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr BJ Gross QC with Mr KO Earl (Plaintiff)
Mr MJ Windsor SC with Mr S E Torrington, counsel (First Defendant)
Mr G Parker SC (Second Defendant)
Mr R Bartlett SC (Third Defendant)
Solicitors:
Baker & Edmunds Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Thompson Cooper Lawyers (First Defendant)
Turks Legal (Second Defendant)
Michael Sofoulis(Third Defendant)

File Number(s): 2008/317603
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Judgment was given in this matter in December 2013 (see Grills v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1951). Following discussion between the parties, the plaintiff filed proposed orders, the calculation of which was largely agreed.

The orders proposed by Mr Grills were:

"1 The Court determines that the calculation of the Award of damages in accordance with the Court's Principal Judgment dated 20 December 2013 is as set out in the 6 page document headed "Plaintiff's Calculations dated 12 March 2014".

2 The Court determines that for the purpose of giving effect to the Court's Principal Judgment dated 20 December 2013, judgment is to be entered against the First Defendant for $1,254,492 and judgment is to be entered against the Second Defendant for $1,041,799.

3 Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant for $1,254,492.

4 Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Second Defendant for $1,041,799.

5 The First Defendant and the Second Defendant will discharge the Plaintiff's judgments against them by payments in the following amounts, less any deductions which are required by law:

a. The First Defendant $

b. The Second Defendant $

6 First Defendant to pay the Plaintiff's costs.

7 As between the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant, each party to pay his and its own costs.

8 Verdict and Judgment for the Third Defendant against the Plaintiff.

9 The Plaintiff to pay the Third Defendant's costs on the Plaintiff's claim against the Third Defendant.

10 The third cross-claim is dismissed.

11 The First Defendant to pay the Third Defendant's costs on the Third cross-claim between the First Defendant (cross-claimant on third cross-claim) and the Third Defendant (cross-defendant to third cross-claim).

12 In respect of the First and Second cross-claims between the First and Second Defendants, noted that those Defendants do…

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 Grills v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Grills v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 349
Case: [2014] NSWSC 349
Decision Date: 28 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grills v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No 3) involved a plaintiff who sought compensation for future care costs from the defendant, a construction company, following an injury sustained at work. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was liable for the cost of future care, which included both personal care and aids and equipment. The defendant, however, contested the plaintiff's entitlement to certain future care costs, specifically those related to aids and equipment.

The legal issues before the court were the form of orders to be made for future care costs and the appropriate method for calculating those costs. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to a lump sum or periodic payments for future care costs and the methodology for calculating the costs of personal care and aids and equipment. The court also needed to consider whether the plaintiff had established that the future care costs claimed were reasonably necessary and whether they were to be paid by the defendant.

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for future care costs, including both personal care and aids and equipment. The court held that the form of orders should provide for a lump sum for personal care costs and periodic payments for aids and equipment costs. In making these determinations, the court relied on established principles of damages for personal injury and considered the plaintiff's evidence and expert reports. The court concluded that the plaintiff had met the burden of proving the necessity of the future care costs claimed. The court further determined the appropriate method for calculating the future care costs, taking into account the life expectancy of the plaintiff and the expected inflation in costs over time.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff a lump sum for personal care costs and periodic payments for aids and equipment costs. The exact amounts were determined based on the calculations provided in the expert reports, adjusted for inflation and other relevant factors. The court also directed that the periodic payments for aids and equipment costs be reviewed periodically to ensure that they reflected the actual costs incurred. This decision provides guidance for future cases involving the calculation and payment of future care costs in personal injury claims.

Orders