Hulanicki v Walton

Case [2014] ACTSC 17

JESSICA IRENE HULANICKI bhnf HELEN HULANICKI
v CLARE LOUISE WALTON
 [2014] ACTSC 17 (7 March 2014)

DAMAGES – Personal Injury – assessment – plaintiff suffered brain injury and unable to manage own affairs

DAMAGES – cost of fund management – whether fund management fees should be calculated on the basis of the ACT Public Trustee or a private trustee – no evidence Public Trustee superior so as to warrant higher fees – Crown has obligation to plaintiff under its parens patriae jurisdiction – Public Trustee a statutory enactment of parens patriae – overcompensation unlikely to arise

DAMAGES – cost of fund management – Richards v Gray [2013] NSWCA 402 applied – whether allowance should be made for management of sum awarded for fund management costs

DAMAGES – cost of fund management – Richards v Gray [2013] NSWCA 402 applied – whether allowance should be made for management of income generated by fund

DAMAGES – cost of fund management – Richards v Gray [2013] NSWCA 402 applied – whether deductions for likely outgoing early in the life of fund should be made prior to fund management calculation

Civil Liability Act2002 (NSW)
Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW)
New South Wales Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 (NSW), s41
Public Trustee Act1985 (ACT), ss 5, 12, 25, 47, 53F

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 1015

Nicholson v Nicholson (1994) 35 NSWLR 308
Richards v Gray [2013] NSWCA 402
Singh (by her next friend Singh) v Calvary Hospital ACT Inc [No. 2] [2009] ACTSC 57
Willett v Fulcher (2005) 221 CLR 627
Cadwallender v The Public Trustee [2003] WASC 72
Jones bhnf Jones v Moylan (1997) 18 WAR 492
Morris v Zanki bhnf Zanki (1997) 18 WAR 260
Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB & Anor (1992) 175 CLR 218
Todorovic v Waller (1981) 150 CLR 72
Commonwealth v Blackwell (1987) 163 CLR 428
Tchadovitch v Tchadovitch (2010) 79 NSWLR 491

Hallett v Schoevers (1992) 109 ACTR 1
Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa (1968) 119 CLR 118

No. SC 300 of 2009
Judge: Burns J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 7 March 2014   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 300 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )          

BETWEEN:  JESSICA HULANICKI
  bhnf HELEN HULANICKI

Plaintiff        

AND:  CLARE LOUISE WALTON

Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Burns J
Date:  7 March 2014
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. Judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $4,227,676.32.

  1. Fund management on the judgment sum is awarded to be calculated by the parties in accordance with these reasons and provided to the court.

  1. The parties be heard as to costs.        

  1. On 6 March 2006 the plaintiff, Jessica Irene Hulanicki, was 20 years old.  Her life was going pretty well; she was employed in the real estate industry, in a position that she enjoyed and which promised opportunities for future advancement.  At about 8:00 pm that day she was driving her Suzuki Swift motor vehicle west on Ginninderra Drive…

Continue reading Hulanicki v Walton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hulanicki v Walton [2014] ACTSC 17
Case
[2014] ACTSC 17
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hulanicki v Walton involved a dispute concerning the assessment of damages for personal injury, specifically the brain injury sustained by the plaintiff, Hulanicki, which rendered them unable to manage their own affairs. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues revolved around the calculation of fund management fees, the method of assessing the cost of managing the awarded sum, and the treatment of income generated by the fund, as well as any deductions for early outgoings.

The court needed to determine whether the fund management fees should be calculated based on the fees of the ACT Public Trustee or a private trustee. It was held that, in the absence of evidence suggesting the Public Trustee's superiority, the fees should align with those of the Public Trustee, reflecting the Crown's parens patriae jurisdiction. This decision aimed to avoid overcompensation while respecting the statutory enactment of the Crown's protective role. The court also considered whether an allowance should be made for managing the sum awarded for fund management costs, income generated by the fund, and deductions for early outgoings, applying the principles established in Richards v Gray [2013] NSWCA 402.

The court reasoned that the fees should be set in line with the Public Trustee’s rates, as there was no evidence indicating a need for higher fees. It further determined that no allowance should be made for managing the sum awarded for fund management costs, nor for the management of income generated by the fund. Additionally, the court decided against making deductions for likely outgoings early in the fund's life before calculating the fund management fees. These decisions were based on the precedent set in Richards v Gray, which emphasised the importance of not duplicating costs or creating overcompensation. The final judgment awarded Hulanicki $4,227,676.32, with fund management to be calculated in accordance with the reasons provided and costs to be addressed in subsequent hearings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $4,227,676.32.

2. Fund management on the judgment sum is awarded to be calculated by the parties in accordance with these reasons and provided to the court.

3. The parties be heard as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.