District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Joldzic (bht Joldzic) v Patrick [2021] NSWDC 55 Hearing dates: 16 - 20 November 2020, further written submissions by plaintiff (26 November 2020 and 5 March 2021), defendant (4 December 2020 and 4 March 2021) Date of orders: 09 March 2021 Decision date: 09 March 2021 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraph 276
Catchwords: MOTOR ACCIDENT – assessment of damages – plaintiff suffers atypical psychotic disorder – pre-existing susceptibility to psychotic disorder – whether accident caused post-traumatic stress symptoms and/or aggravated existing anxiety – scope of liability – whether accident accelerated psychotic disorder
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act2002 (NSW), ss 5D, 5E
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 83
Cases Cited: Carangelo v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 126
Commonwealth v McLean (1996) 41 NSWLR 389
Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 138
Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
McLoughlin v O’Brien [1983] 1 AC 410
Monaghan Surveyors Pty Ltd v Stratford Glen-Avon Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 94
Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383
Neall v Watson (1960) 34 ALJR 364
Newell v Lucas [1964-5] NSWR 1597
Oram v BHP Mitsui Coal Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 230
Parker v Commonwealth of Australia (1975) 49 ALJR 221
Seltsam Pty Ltd v Ghaleb [2005] NSWCA 208
Tabet v Gett (2001) 240 CLR 537
Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158
Texts Cited: American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4th ed)
American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed)
H Luntz, Assessment of Damages for Personal Injury and Death (revised 4th ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2016)
N Mullany & P Handford, Tort Liability for Mental Harm (3rd ed, Thomson Reuters, 2016)
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ms D Joldzic by her tutor Mr M Joldzic (Plaintiff)
Ms M Patrick (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr G Bateman for the plaintiff
Mr B Kelleher for the defendant
Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff
Moray & Agnew Lawyers for the defendant
File Number(s): 2014/137178 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
INTRODUCTION
-
This is a sad case about a young woman whose life has, in all important facets, been derailed by the onset, at least from about February 2016, of what reputable psychiatrists accept is an atypical psychotic disorder. Since late 2019, she has been in receipt of a disability support pension. Her prospects of employment, in the short and medium term, are very clouded. She is highly isolated in a social sense. Her parents, who are currently doing their best to look after her, and particularly her mother, are understandably bewildered and distressed.
-
Accepting, as the parties to this dispute do, that she currently suffers from an atypical…
Continue reading Joldzic (bht Joldzic) v Patrick
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Joldzic (bht Joldzic) v Patrick [2021] NSWDC 55
- Case
- [2021] NSWDC 55
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence regarding the plaintiff's pre-existing mental health condition and whether the accident caused or exacerbated the symptoms. Key issues included establishing the causal link between the accident and the plaintiff's post-accident mental health symptoms, and discerning whether the accident merely triggered symptoms or accelerated an underlying condition. The court also had to decide if the plaintiff's pre-existing susceptibility to mental health issues affected the extent of damages.
The court held that the accident caused post-traumatic stress symptoms which were not significantly affected by the plaintiff's pre-existing susceptibility. However, the court found that the plaintiff's psychotic disorder was not accelerated by the accident. The court carefully assessed the medical evidence and expert opinions to determine the extent of damages attributable to the accident. The court concluded that while the accident caused post-traumatic stress, the plaintiff's pre-existing condition played a significant role in the overall assessment of damages. The court's findings led to the quantification of damages, which were outlined in the final orders.
Orders
Orders of the court
See paragraph 276
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.