Haines v Bendall

_.

-b,l:_USTRALIA,,.!-

-....,.,"»~$-«((('-...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S32 of 1990

B e t w e e n -

TREVOR WILLIAM HAINES

Applicant

and

DENNIS BENDALL

Respondent

Application for special leave

to appeal

MASON CJ
TOOHEY J

McHUGH J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY, 6 AUGUST 1990, AT 3.26 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

Haines 1 6/8/90

MR A.R. ABADEE, QC: If it please Your Honours, in this

matter I appear with my learned friend,

MR P.R. GARLING, and my learned friend, MR

R. GAMBI, for the applicant. (instructed by Paul J.

McGahen).

MR C.R.R. HOEBEN:  May it please the Court, I appear for the

respondent. (instructed by Abbott Tout Russell

Kennedy)

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr Abadee?

MR ABADEE:  May it please the Court, there are two points of

public importance which, in our respectful

submission, arise in respect of this application.

The first question is whether the receipt of

lump sum compensation under the workers

compensation legislation of New South Wales and

indeed, similar legislation in other States and the

Commonwealth, should be taken into account in determining the amount of interest that should be

awarded in respect of past general damages in an

action for damages at common law.

The second point of public importance is

whether the decision of this Court in Batchelor v

Burke, where the Court held that in the computation

of interest in respect of past economic loss one

should have regard to weekly compensation paid

under workers compensation legislation, is a

principle that applies to other forms of

compensation or other forms of damage apart from

damages for past economic loss.

I hand to the Court a photostat copy of the

decision of the Court's judgment in Batchelor v

Burke. May I also hand to the Court a document

headed "Calculation of Interest" which will

indicate the economic importance of the questions

generally.

If I may proceed to the document described as

"Calculation of Interest", 1. represents the

factual matrix of the particular case in

hand; 2. represents what the situation would have

been in terms of interest in the event that the

lump sum compensation had been paid within six

months of the occurrence of the accident, and that

might indeed occur from time to time where there

is, in fact, a clear loss of function or use that

has manifested itself either at the time of injury,

for example, an amputation or alternatively, within

a short period of time of the happening of the

injury. 3. is a calculation taking, for example,

not the facts of this case, but a tabled injury for

loss of eyesight in certain circumstances; and

Haines 2 6/8/90

4. represents what the amount of interest would be

on a lump sum payment in a situation where there is

a loss of one leg in the circumstances postulated

by the example.

The injury to Mr Bendall occurred on

5 December 1979. It is common ground…