Hanzic v Cabramatta Community Centre Inc

[1999] NSWSC 1313

CITATION:	Hanzic v Cabramatta Community Centre Inc & Ors [1999] NSWSC 1313
CURRENT JURISDICTION:	Civil
FILE NUMBER(S):	11310/89
HEARING DATE(S):	20/12/99
JUDGMENT DATE:	20 December 1999
PARTIES :	Phyllis Hanzic Cabramatta Community Centre Inc & Ors
JUDGMENT OF:	Wood CJatCL

COUNSEL :	Capelin QC/Carney D.R.Russell QC Woods with Barrett
SOLICITORS:	Lewarne & Goldsmith Dunhill Madden Butler Brown Sols
CATCHWORDS:
DECISION:	Verdict in acc. with para 1 of short minutes. Stay granted in favour of 2defendant conditional upon that party filing, within 28 days, notice of appeal; and further that that party make partial payment to plaintiff of such sum aswill produce result that within 21 days, plaintiff receives from the defendants a sum of not less than $800,000.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

WOOD CJ AT CL

MONDAY 20 DECEMBER 1999

11310/89 - PHYLLIS MARGARET HANZIC v CABRAMATTA COMMUNITY CENTRE INCORPORATED AND ANOR

---

JUDGMENT

1   HIS HONOUR: I note the terms of settlement in relation to the cross-claims. There will be a verdict in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of those terms. I note the agreement in paragraphs 3 and 4. 2   So far as the cross-claim against the third cross-defendant is concerned, there will be a verdict in accordance with paragraph 1 of those terms which I initial and date and place with the papers. I make an order in accordance with paragraph 2 and I will note paragraphs 3 and 4. 3   After making available to the parties the proposed reasons for Judgment which were to be finalized upon completion of further calculations, it has been drawn to my attention that in two regards, each of which was foreshadowed as an area of some uncertainty in the Reasons, there was not the mathematical agreement as to certain components that was assumed. 4   The first matter relates to the cost of the morphine pump which was the subject of paragraph 123 of the Reasons. As there noted, the starting point of $15,000 before deferral was higher than the upper sum nominated by Dr Sundaraj. I have been informed that it was the understanding of counsel that it was that sum or some mid point in his assessment to which their submissions related. Upon the basis that there was some misunderstanding between myself and the parties in that regard, it was agreed that the figure should be reduced by $2,000 to $13,000 and I substitute that sum of $13,000 in the calculation of the future medical expenses. 5   Additionally, the parties referred to the assumption contained in paragraph 127 as to an agreement for the costs of future hospitalisation of the plaintiff. It has been acknowledged this morning that the sum of $4,600 there mentioned did reflect an averaging of the hospital costs incurred over recent years. Although the submissions in argument were somewhat obscure in relation to this topic, it has been accepted this morning that it was the intention of the defendants that their agreement be confined to the past average hospital costs and was not intended as an arithmetic agreement for the future costs. 6   Again, as the Reasons for Judgment make plain, I queried the appropriateness of assessing the future costs in the sum of $4,600 per annum as it did seem to exceed the expectation of Dr Sundaraj as to the frequency of the occasions of acute exacerbation management. The position in this regard is by no means clear for the future. It is likely that there will be some years in which the plaintiff does well and other years in which she does less well. 7   Allowing for the total uncertainty in this regard, it appears to me appropriate to reduce the sum of $4,600 which I have previously assumed incorrectly to be agreed. I propose to assume a basis for calculation of 50 percent of that sum or $2,300 per annum. It similarly should be subjected to a discount of 15 percent for the contingency of some further resolution. 8   In the light of those various adjustments, the parties have now brought in Short Minutes which will reflect an ultimate verdict for the plaintiff against each defendant in the sum of $1,037,838 after allowance for the Workers' Compensation payments. 9   That produces a Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $1,149,919.60 and against the second defendant in the sum of $1,178,850.40. Those calculations I note include interest as agreed between the parties on the various components. 10   Accordingly, there will be a verdict in accordance with paragraph 1 of the Short Minutes, together with Judgment in accordance with paragraphs 3 to 6 of those Short Minutes. I note the agreement contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Short Minutes which I will initial and date and place with the papers. 11   I will simply sign the Minute of Judgment and I will date it today. I publish my reasons. 12   I grant a stay in favour of the second defendant upon conditions that that party file, within 28 days, a notice of appeal and thereafter prosecute the appeal with due diligence and upon the further condition that that party make a partial payment to the plaintiff of such sum as will produce the result that within 21 days the plaintiff receives from the defendants a sum of not less than $800,000.

**********

Last Modified: 06/26/2000