Katherine Anne Owen v Melanie Anne Allard

Case [2011] ACTSC 179


KATHERINE ANNE OWEN  v MELANIE ANNE ALLARD

[2011] ACTSC 179 (11 November 2011)

DAMAGES – personal injury – whiplash injury to neck – injuries to zygapophysial (facet) joints in cervical spine – efficacy of percutaneous radiofrequency neurotomy treatment – no issue of principle

Zapantis v Gregory [2002] ACTSC 84.

No. SC 45 of 2006

Judge:             Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              11 November 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 45 of 2006
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )          

BETWEEN:KATHERINE ANNE OWEN

Plaintiff

AND:MELANIE ANNE ALLARD

Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  11 November 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The solicitors for the plaintiff are to provide to the solicitors for the defendant within fourteen days a list of treatment expenses and other out-of-pocket expenses claimed by the plaintiff to date, with a calculation of interest claimed on the total.

  1. The solicitors for the defendant are to inform the solicitors for the plaintiff within seven days of receiving the figures whether they are agreed.  If not, the solicitors for the defendant are to provide to the solicitors for the plaintiff a brief submission setting out the basis of the disagreement.

  1. Each party be at liberty to list the matter for final orders on two days notice to the other party.

  1. The plaintiff claims damages for personal injury.  On 30 June 2003 she was a front seat passenger in a car driven by her husband.  It was a wet day.  There had been an accident ahead, and they stopped in a line of traffic.  A car ran into them from behind at considerable speed, pushing their car into the rear of the car in front of them.  Liability is admitted.

  1. The plaintiff was born in July 1981 and is now 30.  She has lived in Canberra since the age of about eight.  She comes from a musical family and showed early promise as a violinist.  She did well generally at school.  She was a student at the School of Music at the Australian National University at the time of her accident, and graduated the following year with first class honours.

  1. She was very much involved in music whilst at school and at university.  She passed the various levels of examinations conducted by the Australian Music Examinations Board on violin, becoming an Associate in 1997 and a Licentiate in 2000.  She participated in many choral and orchestral performances.  While at university she taught on evenings and Saturday mornings at the Phillip Music Learning Centre, and performed with the Canberra Symphony Orchestra among others.  Her studies, lessons and performing work required many hours of practice playing the violin.  From time to time the plaintiff performed at weddings and other functions as a member of a string quartet.

  1. The plaintiff married in late 2002.  Her first marriage did not last.  There is a suggestion that her injuries played a part in its failure, but the evidence is insufficient to satisfy me of this.  She divorced…

Continue reading Katherine Anne Owen v Melanie Anne Allard

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Katherine Anne Owen v Melanie Anne Allard [2011] ACTSC 179
Case
[2011] ACTSC 179
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter between Katherine Anne Owen and Melanie Anne Allard was brought before the court to address claims regarding personal injury sustained by the plaintiff, Ms. Owen, due to a motor vehicle accident. The primary dispute centred on the extent of Ms. Owen's injuries, specifically whiplash injury to her neck, and the effectiveness of a particular treatment, percutaneous radiofrequency neurotomy, for her injuries to the zygapophysial (facet) joints in her cervical spine. The court was tasked with determining whether the treatment was efficacious and to consider the appropriate damages to be awarded to the plaintiff.

The court was required to decide the legal issues surrounding the plaintiff's whiplash injury and the efficacy of the treatment she underwent. The main legal issue was whether the treatment in question, percutaneous radiofrequency neurotomy, was effective in managing Ms. Owen's cervical spine injuries. Additionally, the court had to consider the quantum of damages to be awarded for the injuries sustained and the treatment received, including any interest on the out-of-pocket expenses and treatment costs claimed.

The court determined that there was no issue of principle regarding the efficacy of the treatment, as it found that the treatment was effective in managing Ms. Owen's injuries. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff for the injuries sustained and the treatment received. The court further ordered that the plaintiff's solicitors were to provide a detailed list of the treatment expenses and other out-of-pocket expenses claimed by Ms. Owen to date, along with a calculation of the interest claimed on the total, within fourteen days. This was to facilitate the finalisation of the damages awarded.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The solicitors for the plaintiff are to provide to the solicitors for the defendant within fourteen days a list of treatment expenses and other out-of-pocket expenses claimed by the plaintiff to date, with a calculation of interest claimed on the total.

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.