Hunold v Twinn

Case [2018] QCA 308

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hunold v Twinn & Anor [2018] QCA 308

PARTIES:

KRIS DONALD HUNOLD
(applicant)
v
PAUL TWINN
(first respondent)
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(second respondent)

FILE NOS:

Appeal No 4228 of 2018
DC No 4952 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Brisbane – [2018] QDC 43 (Muir DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

9 November 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 August 2018

JUDGES:

Gotterson and McMurdo JJA and Jackson J

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal granted.

2.   Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – LEGAL PRINCIPLES – where claims for future economic loss rejected on basis that injury fully resolved – where whole person impairment of five per cent – whether whole person impairment should be taken into account in assessing economic loss including under Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 55

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW – FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION – ADEQUACY OF REASONS – where evidence given by applicant and multiple medical professionals – whether trial judge failed to consider evidence

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – FROM DISTRICT COURT – BY LEAVE OF COURT – where one ground of appeal of possible importance beyond present case – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 55, s 61, s 62
Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld)
Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld)
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118

COUNSEL:

A D Stobie for the applicant
J Sorbello for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

McNamara & Associates for the applicant
Crown Law for the respondents

  1. GOTTERSON JA:  I agree with the orders proposed by Jackson J and with the reasons given by his Honour.

  2. McMURDO JA:  I agree with Jackson J.

  3. JACKSON J:  This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the District Court.

  4. On 23 March 2018, the District Court gave judgment for the applicant, as plaintiff, in the sum of $27,500 with no order as to costs.  Leave to appeal is required because the judgment was given for an amount not equal to or more than the Magistrates Court jurisdictional limit.[1]  If granted leave, the applicant would challenge the assessment of damages on the basis that, if the appeal is successful, this court should order a retrial limited to the issue of the quantum of damages.

    [1]District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(2)(a) and (3).

  5. The trial judge found that at about 4.00 am on Saturday 22 August 2009 the applicant suffered an injury or injuries when he was arrested by the first respondent on Orchid Avenue at Surfers Paradise at the Gold Coast.[2]  The…

Continue reading Hunold v Twinn

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hunold v Twinn [2018] QCA 308
Case
[2018] QCA 308
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Hunold v Twinn involved the claimant, Hunold, pursuing damages for personal injuries sustained in an accident. The case was heard and decided by the Queensland Court of Appeal, which was also responsible for assessing the appeal against the District Court's decision. The primary dispute centred on the measure of damages for future economic loss, particularly whether the whole person impairment percentage should be factored into the assessment of economic damages. The case also questioned whether the trial judge had adequately considered all evidence, including that from multiple medical professionals, in determining the damages awarded.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included the proper method for calculating future economic loss in personal injury cases, where the injury is deemed to have fully resolved. Additionally, the court had to determine if the trial judge erred by failing to consider the whole person impairment of five per cent in assessing economic loss. This included an examination of whether the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 55 required such consideration. Another significant issue was whether the trial judge had failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision, potentially indicating an error of law or unconscious bias.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's findings regarding the applicant's ongoing lumbar spine problems were justified and did not constitute an error. The court further concluded that the disc bulges did not affect other fundamental findings and thus did not demonstrate any error by the trial judge. The court also found that the grounds of appeal raised were sufficiently addressed in the hearing for leave to appeal, and no substantial error was evident in the trial judge's assessment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted on the basis that one ground of appeal had potential importance beyond the present case.

The final orders of the court were to grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal. This outcome reflects the court's determination that while the issues raised were significant, they did not warrant altering the original decision of the District Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal dismissed.

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

The further finding made by the trial judge that the ongoing problems with his lumbar spine infected a number of aspects of the applicant’s case is justifiable as a reference to the applicant’s own view that the disc bulges were the same injury and other findings about the applicant’s evidence by reason of his unconscious bias or wishful thinking. In any event, as the L4/L5 and L5/S1 disc bulges did not necessarily affect any of the other fundamental findings that informed her Honour’s assessment of damages, the applicant does not demonstrate any error made by the trial judge on this ground.Conclusion In the result, because the points sought to be raised on appeal were dealt with in some detail at the hearing of the application for leave to appeal and I have dealt with them in substance in these reasons, I would grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.