Hart v Frost-Cornwall - [2025] VSC 330

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PERSONAL INJURIES LIST

S ECI 2024 00153

BLAKE HART	Plaintiff
v
MARCUS FROST-CORNWALL	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	O’Meara J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29, 30 April and 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 June 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hart v Frost-Cornwall
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 330

---

PERSONAL INJURIES – Liability admitted – Assessment of damages – Plaintiff seriously injured in motor vehicle accident in September 2017 – Plaintiff hospitalised, later discharged and underwent recovery – Plaintiff returned to work as a roof tiler – Plaintiff presented for treatment of left knee condition in February 2018 – Nature of left knee condition – Whether motor accident was a cause of the left knee condition – Other accident related injuries, including psychiatric injuries – Extent of past and future consequences in the nature of pain and suffering and economic loss – Loss of capacity to work as a roof tiler – Evaluation of lost chance of self-employment as a roof tiler – Evaluation of past and future residual capacity for employment – Vicissitudes and ‘buffers’ – Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638; Geelong Leather Pty Ltd v Delaney [2014] VSCA 98 considered – Damages assessed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	FC Spencer KC with K Karadimas	Harris Lieberman Solicitors
For the Defendant	CJ Blanden KC with S Pinkstone	Solicitor to the Transport Accident Commission

HIS HONOUR:

A Introduction

The plaintiff was born on 7 June 1995 and lived his early life in Geelong.

He had learning difficulties and left school without completing year 10. He subsequently completed the Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning.

The plaintiff lost direction during adolescence.[1] He had a marijuana addiction and mental struggles. He seems to have become estranged from his family and was effectively homeless for a period. He later undertook rehabilitation and a successful trial as a roof tiler, which led to him commencing a three year apprenticeship.
[1]Transcript (‘T’) 36.

The plaintiff started his apprenticeship with one company and then moved to another before transferring to a third company named Global Roofing. Part of his apprenticeship involved attending trade school (which the plaintiff found to be a struggle until assisted by medication). In 2017, the plaintiff was in the final year of his apprenticeship.[2]
[2]Cf T109-10.

At that time, the plaintiff seems to have been sharing a rental property with the woman who at some point became his partner, Maddison Rowland (‘Maddison’).

The plaintiff gave evidence that at that point his life was ‘perfect’. He had hobbies and activities including skateboarding and BMX riding.[3] In respect of his work as a roof tiler, the plaintiff gave evidence that —

I loved it. It was my lifestyle. A lot of people couldn’t do it. … It was something I wanted to continue to do and see myself setting myself up for…

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 Hart v Frost-Cornwall

Details

AGLC: Hart v Frost-Cornwall [2025] VSC 330
Case: [2025] VSC 330
Decision Date: 12 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hart v Frost-Cornwall, the plaintiff, Hart, sought damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident in September 2017. Following the accident, Hart was hospitalised and later discharged. Despite undergoing recovery, Hart returned to work as a roof tiler. In February 2018, Hart presented for treatment of a left knee condition, which he attributed to the accident. The dispute centred on whether the motor accident caused the left knee condition and the extent of other accident-related injuries, including psychiatric injuries, and their consequences in terms of pain and suffering and economic loss. Liability was admitted by Frost-Cornwall, and the primary issue for determination was the assessment of damages.

The court examined the causation of the left knee condition and the broader impact of the accident on Hart's life. The plaintiff argued that the accident led to significant injuries, including a permanent left knee condition, other physical injuries, and psychiatric harm. The court considered the evidence regarding the nature and extent of these injuries and their impact on Hart's ability to work as a roof tiler and his capacity for future employment. The court applied principles from Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd and Geelong Leather Pty Ltd v Delaney to assess the damages, taking into account the lost chance of self-employment, residual capacity for employment, and other relevant factors.

After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that the motor accident did cause the left knee condition and other injuries. The court assessed the extent of past and future consequences, including pain and suffering, economic loss, and the impact on Hart's employment prospects. The court awarded damages, considering the lost chance of self-employment as a roof tiler and Hart's residual capacity for other employment. The court recognised the significant impact of the accident on Hart's life and future earning potential.

The court's final orders included a detailed assessment of damages, reflecting the extent of Hart's injuries and their consequences. The judgment provided a comprehensive evaluation of the plaintiff's claims, ensuring that the damages awarded appropriately addressed the harm suffered and the impact on Hart's life.

Orders