Hunt v Lemura (No 1) - [2011] QSC 426

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hunt v Lemura & Anor (No 1) [2011] QSC 426

PARTIES:

CARLA LOUISE HUNT
(Plaintiff)
v
CARL SEBASTIAN LEMURA
(First Defendant)
AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED MOTOR INSURERS LIMITED
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

564 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

4 October 2011 (ex tempore ruling)

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

3-5 October 2011

JUDGE:

Henry J

RULING:

“Quantum statement” admitted into evidence as Exhibit 18.

CATCHWORDS:

EVIDENCE – admissibility of “Quantum statement” in personal injury trial – where statement contained quantum calculations which were in dispute – whether entirety of statement should be admitted

Evidence Act1977 (Qld) s 92
Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 1999 (Qld) r 5, 394

COUNSEL:

A R Philp SC with P Lafferty for the plaintiff
G Crow SC for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Roati & Firth Solicitors for the plaintiff
Miller Harris Lawyers for the defendant

HIS HONOUR: At the outset of this trial, Mr Crow SC, counsel for the defendant, objected to the proposed tender through the plaintiff by her counsel Mr Philp SC, of a document headed, "Quantum statement". I allowed the tender of the document, which became Exhibit 18. These are my reasons for doing so.

It is tolerably well known that at least since an era when Sir George Kneipp was the Northern Judge, the resident Judges from Rockhampton north have generally allowed the tender of so-called quantum statements in personal injuries trials. The practice appears to have been so long accepted that counsel before me have been unable to locate any published ruling on argument as to the admissibility of such statements. The upshot is that I have no guidance from past authority in respect of this longstanding practice as to the usual content of the statements allowed by it and the basis for their admissibility under it.

In the circumstances, I do not purport by this ruling to either endorse or depart from an apparently longstanding yet largely undefined practice. My ruling must inevitably be based only on the admissibility of the document sought to be tendered here. For reasons which will become apparent however, the existence of the abovementioned practice has some passing relevance to discretionary considerations affecting my ruling.

Exhibit 18 contains information which falls loosely into two categories, namely evidence which the plaintiff could give in the normal course of evidence-in-chief and quantum calculations.

As to the former the plaintiff’s statement addresses her injuries and illnesses suffered pre and post accident, the accident, the injuries suffered as a result of the accident, her attendance upon and treatment received from various health practitioners, her pain and suffering, her past problems in working after being injured, her plans for work in the future and the impact of her injuries on those plans, her loss of amenities of life and consequence of the injuries, her medical and associated expenses in consequence of the injuries, the care and assistance she had needed in the past as a result of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hunt v Lemura (No 1) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] QSC 426
Decision Date: 4 October 2011 (ex tempore ruling)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a personal injury claim where the plaintiff, Hunt, sought damages from the defendant, Lemura. The dispute centred around the admissibility of a "Quantum statement" in the trial, which contained calculations related to the quantum of damages claimed. The statement was contentious as the parties disagreed on the methodology and figures used in the calculations. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue was whether the entirety of the Quantum statement should be admitted into evidence despite the dispute over the calculations. The court had to consider the relevance of the statement in determining the damages claim and whether excluding the disputed parts would render the statement inadmissible. The court also needed to assess whether the probative value of the statement outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have due to the disputed calculations.

The court held that while the calculations within the Quantum statement were contentious, the document as a whole had significant relevance to the determination of damages in the case. The court found that excluding the disputed parts of the statement would not necessarily render it inadmissible. The probative value of the statement outweighed any prejudicial effect, as it provided a comprehensive basis for the damages claim. Consequently, the court ruled that the entire Quantum statement should be admitted into evidence.

The court ordered that the Quantum statement, despite the disputed calculations, be admitted as evidence in the trial. This decision allowed the statement to be used as a basis for the plaintiff's claim for damages, while also acknowledging the need for the parties to address the disputed calculations through the trial process.

Orders