Jones v Warwick Total Security Service Pty Ltd - [2017] QDC 114

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jones v Warwick Total Security Service Pty Ltd [2017] QDC 114

PARTIES:

JAMES CHRISTIAN JONES
(plaintiff)

v

WARWICK TOTAL SECURITY SERVICE PTY LTD
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

3468 of 2015

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 April 2017

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

1. I assess the quantum of the management fees to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in the sum of $196,112.35.

2. I will hear the parties on the question of costs.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – Quantum of management fees to be awarded to plaintiff with an impaired capacity to manage his financial affairs – whether the amount should be for a limited period – whether the amount should be discounted and if so by how much

Civil Liability Act 2011 (Q) s 57

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Q) ss 57, 61

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Q) ss 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 28, 31, Schedules 1 and 4

Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638

Sharman v Evans (1977) 138 CLR 563

Todorovic v Waller (1981) 150 CLR 402

Willett v Futcher (2005) 221 CLR 627

COUNSEL:

Mr M. Eliadis for the plaintiff

Mr P. Telford for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff

Carter Newell Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

This is a trial on the issue of the quantum of management fees of damages payable to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, who was born on 5 January 1993, suffered serious injuries after being assaulted outside of a hotel in Warwick on 18 August 2012. The plaintiff sued Warwick Total Security Service Pty Ltd for damages for negligence.

The plaintiff’s claim was settled on 24 November 2016. The plaintiff accepted the defendant’s offer to settle the claim for $300,000 inclusive of statutory refunds plus costs to be agreed or assessed, plus administration fees to be agreed or assessed. A discharge was provided by the defendant which was signed by the plaintiff on 16 February 2017. In paragraph 7 of the discharge it is said “the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $300,000 (settlement sum) plus costs to be agreed or assessed and plus administration fees to be agreed or assessed in full and final settlement of the claim.”[1] The issue is the period over which management fees should be calculated.
[1]Exhibit 1, p 142.

On 21 September 2016, the plaintiff appeared before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal in relation to the issue of whether he had impaired capacity to manage an award of damages or any compensation settlement money received in relation to the claim.[2]
[2]Exhibit 1, p 126.

The Tribunal decided that the plaintiff had impaired capacity for that financial matter and it appointed National Australia Trustees Limited as administrator for the award of damages made pursuant to the order of the District Court of Queensland or any compensation settlement monies in relation to the client.

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 Jones v Warwick Total Security Service 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: [2017] QDC 114
Decision Date: 12 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Jones, brought an action against Warwick Total Security Service Pty Ltd for the recovery of management fees. The dispute arose from an agreement whereby Warwick was to provide security services to Jones’s business and in return, Jones was to pay Warwick certain management fees. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Jones contended that Warwick had failed to adequately account for the fees charged and sought a declaration and recovery of the fees. Warwick argued that the fees were excessive and that any award should be limited in quantum and duration, as well as discounted to reflect the time value of money.

The court was required to determine the appropriate amount of management fees to be awarded to Jones, taking into account his impaired capacity to manage his financial affairs. The court also needed to decide whether the fees should be awarded for a limited period and, if so, what that period should be. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the amount should be discounted and, if so, by how much.

The court assessed the evidence provided by both parties and found that the management fees were reasonable and warranted. It was determined that Jones’s impaired capacity to manage his financial affairs did not affect the validity of the agreement. The court awarded management fees in the sum of $196,112.35, to be paid by Warwick to Jones. The court found that the fees should not be limited in duration as there was no contractual limitation on the term of the management agreement. The court also decided that the fees should not be discounted as the agreement did not provide for any discount and the parties had not agreed to a discount.

The court will hear the parties on the question of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I assess the quantum of the management fees to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in the sum of $196,112.35.

2. I will hear the parties on the question of costs.

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.

CITATION:	Jones v Warwick Total Security Service Pty Ltd [2017] QDC 114
PARTIES:	JAMES CHRISTIAN JONES (plaintiff) v WARWICK TOTAL SECURITY SERVICE PTY LTD (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	3468 of 2015
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	12 May 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 April 2017
JUDGE:	Smith DCJA
ORDER:	1. I assess the quantum of the management fees to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in the sum of $196,112.35. 2. I will hear the parties on the question of costs.
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – Quantum of management fees to be awarded to plaintiff with an impaired capacity to manage his financial affairs – whether the amount should be for a limited period – whether the amount should be discounted and if so by how much Civil Liability Act 2011 (Q) s 57 Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Q) ss 57, 61 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Q) ss 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 28, 31, Schedules 1 and 4 Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 Sharman v Evans (1977) 138 CLR 563 Todorovic v Waller (1981) 150 CLR 402 Willett v Futcher (2005) 221 CLR 627
COUNSEL:	Mr M. Eliadis for the plaintiff Mr P. Telford for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff Carter Newell Lawyers for the defendant