Hunt v Marellen Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWSC 974

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hunt v Marellen Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 974
Hearing dates: 7 August 2024
Decision date: 08 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Ierace J
Decision:
Settlement approved

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – approval of settlement in relation to persons under legal incapacity – settlement approved

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 75, 76, 77

Cases Cited:
Permanent Trustee Co Ltd v Mills (2007) 71 NSWLR 1; [2007] NSWSC 336

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Joseph Hunt bht Kristie McMahon (Plaintiff)
Summer Sarah Jay Hunt bht Kristie McMahon (Plaintiff)
Marellan Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Joseph (Plaintiffs)
M Tavener (Sol) (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Lindeman Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
Thynne Macartney (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/359548; 2019/359584

JUDGMENT

This is an application for approval of proposed settlements of claims for damages commenced on behalf of Joseph Hunt (Joseph) and his sister Summer Hunt (Summer), by their half-sibling as their tutor, Kristie McMahon, against Marellen Pty Ltd (the defendant) who, it is alleged, was responsible for the death of their father, Douglas Hunt.
The applications are made pursuant to ss 75 and 76 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (the Act). Section 76 provides that, in a case of proceedings commenced on behalf of a person under legal incapacity, an agreement for a compromise or settlement cannot be made, unless it is approved by the Court. The plaintiffs’ incapacity arises by virtue of their ages; Joseph is aged 13 and Summer is aged 17.

Background

The claims arise from the sinking of a fishing vessel known as the FV Night Raider (Night Raider), which was owned and operated by the defendant. Douglas Hunt was a crew member on board at the time. On 12 November 2016, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries vessel monitoring system (VMS) lost contact with the Night Raider. Its last known position was north-west of Fraser Island, Queensland. On 17 December 2017, a hydrographic survey of the ocean floor in the area of the last known position of the Night Raider discovered it lying in 142 metres of water. Images taken by a remotely operated submersible vessel (ROV) did not detect any apparent damage to the hull or other visual explanation for its sinking. No bodies were recovered.
In a finding dated 14 January 2020, the coroner determined that the deceased drowned on 12 November 2016, consequent to the Night Raider overturning and sinking.
By separate amended statements of claim filed on 1 September 2021, Joseph and Summer claimed damages for nervous shock arising from their father’s death, that was alleged to have occurred consequent to the defendant’s negligence (the nervous shock claims).
By an amended statement of claim filed 9 September 2021, Joseph and Summer Hunt claimed for the loss of financial and/or non-financial benefits of dependency as a result of their father’s death, which they alleged was caused by the negligence and/or breach of contract of the defendant (the dependency claim). Another sibling, Daniel Hunt, by his tutor Kristie McMahon,…

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 Marellen Pty Ltd 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: [2024] NSWSC 974
Decision Date: 08 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hunt v Marellen Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, involving a dispute over the approval of a settlement agreement reached between the plaintiff, Hunt, and the defendant, Marellen Pty Ltd, in relation to a personal injury claim. The plaintiff, who had sustained injuries in a workplace accident, was under a legal incapacity at the time of the settlement due to a traumatic brain injury. The court was tasked with determining whether the settlement was fair and reasonable and whether it adequately provided for the plaintiff's future needs.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the settlement amount was fair and reasonable, considering the plaintiff's condition and future needs. The court had to assess whether the settlement provided adequate compensation for the plaintiff's injuries and if it was in the best interests of the plaintiff to approve the settlement. The court also needed to consider the evidence provided by the parties regarding the plaintiff's injuries, prognosis, and future care requirements.

The court found that the settlement was fair and reasonable, taking into account the evidence presented and the circumstances of the case. The court considered the plaintiff's medical reports, the nature and extent of the injuries, and the future care requirements. The court was satisfied that the settlement amount was appropriate and that it provided adequate compensation for the plaintiff's injuries. The court also found that the settlement was in the best interests of the plaintiff, considering their current and future needs. The court approved the settlement, ensuring that the plaintiff's rights and interests were protected.

Orders