SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
PARTIES:
Paul Ashley Koven
Plaintiff
v
Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd (ACN 080 002 008)
Defendant
FILE NO/S:
SC 32 of 2010
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:
25 March 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:
15 February 2011 & 21 March 2011.
JUDGE:
McMeekin J
ORDER:
Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $866,486.58
CATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES — Measure and remoteness of damages in actions for tort — Measure of damages — Personal injuries — General principles — Future Economic Loss – Future Paid Services - Where plaintiff suffered injury to left ankle where liability admitted — Where calculation of future loss of earnings affected by the vicissitudes of the mining industry – Prospective earnings as a Dragline Operator – Residual Earning Capacity - Whether Plaintiff would have continued working as a dragline operator beyond age sixty – Whether certain services claimed for damages were paid or gratuitous.
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth)
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)
Anodising & Aluminium Finishers v Coleman [1999] QCA 467; [2002] 1 Qd R 141
Bugge v REB Engineering Pty Ltd [1999] 2 Qd R 227
Craddock v Anglo Coral (Moranbah North Management) Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 133
Duong v Versacold Logistics Ltd and Ors [2010] QSC 466
Foster & Anor v Cameron [2010] QSC 372; [2011] QCA 48
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Holland v Jones (1917) 23 CLR 149
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
Ollier v Magnetic Island Country Club Incorporated & Shanahan [2003] QSC 263
Thomas v O’Shea (1989) ATR 80-251
Townsend v BBC Hardware Ltd [2003] QSC 015
Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485
COUNSEL:
C Heyworth-Smith and B Hartigan for the Plaintiff
R Treston for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:
Macrossan & Amiet Solicitors for the Plaintiff
Sparke Helmore Lawyers for the Defendant
McMEEKIN J: Mr Paul Ashley Koven suffered an injury to his ankle on 13 November 2007 in the course of his employment with the defendant, Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd.
Liability is admitted. I am required to assess damages. Some heads of loss are agreed but significant differences remain in relation to general damages, future economic loss and future paid care.
The plaintiff was born on 15 January 1961. He was therefore 46 years of age at the date of the accident. He was aged 50 at the time of the trial.
The Injury and its Aftermath
The plaintiff suffered an inversion injury to his left ankle. The orthopaedic evidence was that as a consequence the plaintiff had:
(a) disruption of the anterior Talo-Fibula ligament and the lateral ligament to the left ankle (calcaneo fibula ligament);
(b) a bony and articular cartilage injury to the medial aspect of the Talar Dome;
(c) secondary instability of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Koven v Hail Creek Coal 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] QSC 51
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the plaintiff's residual earning capacity and the impact of the mining industry's vicissitudes on future earnings. It assessed the likelihood of the plaintiff continuing to work as a dragline operator beyond the age of sixty and factored this into the damages calculation. The court also examined the nature of the services claimed for damages, determining whether they were paid or gratuitous, which influenced the assessment of future economic loss.
In its judgment, the court found in favour of the plaintiff, awarding damages of $866,486.58. The court concluded that the plaintiff would have continued working as a dragline operator beyond the age of sixty and that certain services claimed for damages were paid. This finding was crucial in determining the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded. The court's detailed analysis of the plaintiff's earning capacity, the impact of the mining industry, and the nature of the services claimed for damages led to the final award of damages.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $866,486.58
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.