Joldzic (bht Joldzic) v Patrick

Case [2021] NSWDC 55


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:

Brown v Lewis [2006] NSWCA 87

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

Pham v Shui [2006] NSWCA 373

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

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074

Wilson v Peisley (1975) 7 ALR 571

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:
Mr G Bateman for the plaintiff
Mr B Kelleher for the defendant

Solicitors:
Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff
Moray & Agnew Lawyers for the defendant
File Number(s): 2014/137178
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

  1. 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.

  2. 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

Details
AGLC
Joldzic (bht Joldzic) v Patrick [2021] NSWDC 55
Case
[2021] NSWDC 55
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Joldzic v Patrick, the plaintiff, Joldzic, sued for damages following a motor vehicle accident caused by the defendant, Patrick. The primary dispute centred on the assessment of damages, particularly in relation to the plaintiff's mental health. Joldzic suffered from an atypical psychotic disorder and claimed that the accident either caused post-traumatic stress symptoms or aggravated pre-existing anxiety, which in turn accelerated the psychotic disorder. The court was tasked with determining the extent to which the accident contributed to the plaintiff's condition and the appropriate scope of damages.

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.