Huet v Irvine

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of Huet v Irvine concerns an application to sanction a settlement for Cary Garth Huet, who suffered injuries in a work-related accident. The settlement figure, agreed upon by the parties, amounts to $1,120,000, which represents a little over 50% of the estimated damages as assessed by senior counsel for the plaintiff. The settlement was agreed upon due to the perceived significant risk of failure in the action and the likelihood of a substantial reduction in damages due to contributory negligence. The judge, Dutney J, has reservations about sanctioning the settlement due to the claims for gratuitous services made by the plaintiff's former partner and parents.

The legal issues in this case revolve around the appropriate approach to take when sanctioning a settlement that includes claims for gratuitous services provided to the injured party. The claimants, the plaintiff's former partner and parents, argue that they are entitled to reimbursement for the services they provided, such as care and support, which they would not have provided had the plaintiff not been injured. The judge acknowledges that the claimants have a moral claim but notes that there is no legal entitlement to any payment from the settlement sum. The judge refers to the High Court decision in Kars v Kars to emphasize that the focus of damages for gratuitous services is on the injured party's needs, and whether the injured party reimburses the provider is a matter between them.

Dutney J concludes that the evidence provided by the claimants is deficient and does not support the claims for gratuitous services. The judge outlines the type of evidence that might be required to substantiate such claims, including details of the nature and extent of the services, evidence of the fair value of those services, and an assessment of the risk that the proposed payments may unacceptably diminish the capital sum required to meet the plaintiff's future needs. The judge adjourns the matter to allow the claimants to present further evidence or submissions if they wish to do so. If no further evidence or submissions are made, the judge will make an order in terms of the draft supplied by the plaintiff, with the exception of paragraphs 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7, which will be deleted. The defendant is not required to appear if no party appears, provided that the judge's associate is notified by 9:00 am on the day of the hearing.