Jordan v Bailey - [2015] QDC 34

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jordan v Bailey [2015] QDC 34

PARTIES:

LUKE MATTHEW JORDAN
(plaintiff)

v

GLENN ANTHONY BAILEY
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

4122 of 2012

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Assessment of damages

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

24 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 February 2015

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $62 995.00.

2. Further order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action, including reserved costs to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

ASSAULT – Assessment of damages – injury to finger – past economic loss – future economic loss – general damages – psychiatric injury – whether entitled to aggravated damages

WAQ v Di Pino [2012] QCA 283

Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118

Paten v Bale [1999] QSC 265

P v R [2010] QSC 139

Davis & Anor v Bound & Anor [2011] QDC 082

LEGISLATION:

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)

Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld)

SOLICITORS:

O’Hare Law for the plaintiff

INTRODUCTION

I am required to assess the plaintiff’s damages pursuant to a judgment of 28 June 2013. That judgment was entered because the defendant failed to enter an appearance after having been served with a Claim and Statement of Claim claiming damages as a result of the defendant assaulting the plaintiff. Subsequently Judge O’Brien DCJA made orders on 13 June 2014 in respect of the conduct of that assessment. I made further orders on 21 January 2015 setting the assessment down for hearing and ordering substituted service of documents on which the plaintiff relied. An affidavit of the plaintiff’s solicitors was filed by leave before me on the hearing of this matter on 19 February 2015. It attests to such service.

The cost of the application before me were reserved. In circumstances where the defendant did not appear on the assessment I propose to allow the plaintiff the costs of that appearance.

The plaintiff was assaulted by the defendant on 15 October 2009. He was initially struck outside a hotel on Gympie Road and after security staff separated them, was again assaulted by the defendant, armed with a weapon, as he walked home. The defendant attacked him with a piece of wood, which it was said was studded with nails or something similar. He was struck numerous times.

As a consequence of this attack the plaintiff suffered puncture wounds to his face, forearm, left flank and left index finger. He was admitted by ambulance to the Redcliffe Hospital. His wounds were washed. The injury to his finger required surgery – open reduction and internal fixation of the left index finger. He was discharged from hospital on 18 October and subsequently followed up in Outpatients.

EMPLOYMENT

The plaintiff was born on 6 July 1984 so is now 30 years of age. He left school after completing year 12 in 2001. In July 2004 he commenced work with GB Electrics. Its principal business appears to…

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.

Continue reading Jordan v Bailey

Details

AGLC: Jordan v Bailey [2015] QDC 34
Case: [2015] QDC 34
Decision Date: 24 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jordan brought an action against Bailey seeking compensation for injuries sustained in an altercation. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Jordan claimed damages for an injury to his left middle finger, future economic loss due to his employment as a builder, general damages for the injuries sustained, and psychiatric injury. Bailey admitted liability for the injury to Jordan’s finger and conceded that he was liable for damages, but the quantum of the damages was in dispute. The court was required to assess the damages Jordan was entitled to for his injuries, as well as whether he was entitled to aggravated damages for the psychiatric injury he sustained.

The court considered the nature and extent of the injuries, the effect on Jordan’s capacity to work, and the extent to which the injuries would impact him in the future. The court noted that Jordan had sustained a serious injury to his finger, which required surgery and would have long-term effects on his capacity to work. The court also found that Jordan had suffered a psychiatric injury as a result of the altercation, for which he was entitled to aggravated damages. The court assessed the damages for the finger injury, future economic loss, general damages, and psychiatric injury, and awarded Jordan the sum of $62,995.00.

The court found that Bailey was liable for the injuries sustained by Jordan and ordered him to pay the full amount of the damages assessed by the court, as well as the costs of the action. The court found that Bailey was also liable for the psychiatric injury sustained by Jordan and awarded him aggravated damages for that injury. The court considered the impact of the injuries on Jordan’s life and his capacity to work in the future, and found that the damages awarded were appropriate to compensate him for his losses.

The court ordered that Bailey pay the full amount of the damages assessed by the court, as well as the costs of the action, including reserved costs to be assessed. The court found that the damages awarded were appropriate to compensate Jordan for his injuries and the impact they had on his life and capacity to work. The court also found that Bailey was liable for the psychiatric injury sustained by Jordan and awarded him aggravated damages for that injury. The court considered the totality of the circumstances and found that the damages awarded were fair and reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained by Jordan.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $62 995.00.

2. Further order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action, including reserved costs to be assessed.

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:	Jordan v Bailey [2015] QDC 34
PARTIES:	LUKE MATTHEW JORDAN (plaintiff) v GLENN ANTHONY BAILEY (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	4122 of 2012
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Assessment of damages
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	24 February 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 February 2015
JUDGE:	Reid DCJ
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $62 995.00. 2. Further order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action, including reserved costs to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	ASSAULT – Assessment of damages – injury to finger – past economic loss – future economic loss – general damages – psychiatric injury – whether entitled to aggravated damages WAQ v Di Pino [2012] QCA 283 Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 Paten v Bale [1999] QSC 265 P v R [2010] QSC 139 Davis & Anor v Bound & Anor [2011] QDC 082
LEGISLATION:	Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld)
SOLICITORS:	O’Hare Law for the plaintiff