Langdon v Carnival Plc t/as P&O Cruises Australia - [2023] NSWSC 1406

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Langdon v Carnival PLC t/as P&O Cruises Australia [2023] NSWSC 1406
Hearing dates: 27 March 2023 - 30 March 2023
Date of orders: 20 November 2023
Decision date: 20 November 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
(1) Judgment is entered for the defendant.
(2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs.

Catchwords:
NEGLIGENCE - Causation – Duty of care – Personal injury – Breach – Civil Liability – Personal Injury – Cruise – Broken wooden step – Credibility – Neck injury – Shoulder injury – Psychological – Asymptomatic preconditions – Factual Causation – Balance of probabilities – But for test – Necessary condition – Scope of liability – Damages – Non- economic loss – Economic loss

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ss 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E and 16.

Cases Cited:
Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak [2009] HCA 48
Berkeley Challenge Pty Lyd v Howarth [2013] NSWCA 370
Clifton v Lewis [2012] NSWCA 229
Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320
State of New South Wales v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536
Graham v Baker (1961) CLR 340
Kallouf v Middis [2008] NSWCA 61
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) CLR 638
Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Ryan v AF Concrete Pumping Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 113
State of NSW v Moss (2002) 54 NSWLR 536
Strong v Woolworths Limited (2012) 246 CLR182 HCA 5; 246 CLR 182; 86 ALJR 267; 285 ALR 420
Wallace v Kam (2013) HCA 19; 250 CLR 375; 87 ALJR 648; 297 ALR 383
Zanner v Zanner [2010] NSWCA 343

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Peter Langdon (Plaintiff)
Carnival PLC t/as P&O Cruises (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr. R Mcllwaine SC & Ms N. Compton (Plaintiff).
Mr C.P. O’Neill & Mr Algie (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Shine Layers (Plaintiff)
Gilchrist Connell (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/327473

Contents

JUDGMENT

The pleading Framework
Evidence
Lay witnesses
Background
The cruise incident
After the accident
The plaintiff’s evidence after the cruise incident
Between the cruise incident up to the bathroom incident
The bathroom incident on 21 December 2017
The plaintiff’s credibility
Neck Movement
Inconsistencies in versions of the bathroom incident
Orthopaedic Surgeons’ Reports
Joint report of orthopaedic surgeons
Orthopaedic surgeons’ concurrent evidence
The physicians’ evidence
Joint report of Drs Peter Blombery and Seamus Dalton 23 March 2023
Concurrent evidence of Drs Dalton and Blomberry
My findings as to the plaintiff’s neck and shoulder injury

Summary of the medico-legal reports and opinions
Psychiatric Evidence
The psychiatrists’ concurrent evidence
My findings in relation to psychiatric evidence
Damages
Non-economic loss

Past out-of-pocket expenses
Future out-of-pocket expenses
Past economic loss
Future economic loss
Past care
Future care
Result
Costs

JUDGMENT

This judgment concerns a personal injury suffered by the plaintiff allegedly caused by a step giving way in the pool while on a cruise operated by the defendant.
The plaintiff is Peter Langdon. The defendant is Carnival PLC t/as P&O Cruises Australia ACN 107 998 443. The plaintiff was represented by R. McIlwaine of counsel. The defendant was represented by C.P. O.Neill of counsel.
The parties relied on a joint court book marked Exhibit A (‘CB’), comprised of three volumes.
The plaintiff’s daughter booked a cruise for her the father, the plaintiff, with the defendant on the ship, the Pacific Aria on Voyage A7XXN, visiting Papa New Guinea and the Solomon Islands for 10 days, commencing 14 November 2017 departing Brisbane, Queensland. The plaintiff alleges that on 19 November 2017 he sustained injury to his cervical spine, left shoulder, and psychological injury because of the incident when he fell a short distance after a step gave way beneath him onboard the Pacific Aria cruise ship (‘the incident’).
These proceedings are governed by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (‘CLA’). The defendant has admitted it breached its duty of care owed to the plaintiff on the basis that the subject step gave away and collapsed when the plaintiff stepped onto it. The central issue is causation. The defendant denies that it is liable for the injuries and disabilities that the plaintiff alleges he now experiences. The defendant says that there is no causal link between the incident and the injuries and disabilities now alleged by the plaintiff.

The pleading Framework

By the statement of claim filed 17 November 2020, the plaintiff relevantly pleads:

4….
d. The plaintiff attempted to descend from the timber decking to the tiled area using the Step;
e. The step leading from the timber decking to the tiled area of the swimming pool was not properly maintained; and
f. As the plaintiff descended onto the Step from the timber decking, the Step suddenly gave way and collapsed, causing the Plaintiff to fall approximately sixty centimetres onto the tiled floor below (‘the cruise incident’).

The plaintiff claims that as a result of the incident he suffered pain and injuries relating to, cervical spine, left shoulder, psychological and psychiatric injuries (Statement of claim (‘SOC’), 17 November 2022 at [5])
The defendant does not admit to paragraph 5 of the statement of claim which relates to causation (Defence, 12 February 2021 at [5]).

Evidence

The plaintiff relied upon his evidentiary statement dated 19 February 2021 and a further evidentiary statement dated 23 December 2022. He gave evidence and was subject to lengthy cross examination.

Lay witnesses

The evidentiary statements are those from Jessica Langdon, Emily Langdon, Caitlyn Langdon, the daughters of the plaintiff. As did Michelle Burgess, the plaintiff’s current partner and Mark Howes and Mark Owens, the latter two being the plaintiff’s friends and associates.
The plaintiff relied upon, medico-legal reports from, orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Peter Moran and vascular and pain physician, Dr Peter Blombery as well as psychiatrist Prof Lorraine Dennerstein.
The defendant relied upon medico-legal reports from Dr Brett Courtenay Orthopaedic Surgeon, Dr Seamus Dalton physician in rehabilitation medicine and the report of Dr Doron Samuell psychiatrist.

Background

The plaintiff was born in 1961. He was 56 years old at the time of the incident.
From 1974 to 1978, he attended Parkdale High School. He completed year 11 in 1978, but failed his final exams because of time taken off from school to assist his mother while his father had been ill.
While at school, the plaintiff played AFL, cricket, and worked part time from 1975 in the boning room at an abattoir.
After completing school, the plaintiff went to work full time in various abattoir’s performing manual tasks.
In 1980, the plaintiff took two weeks off work, following a back injury from which he fully recovered.
In 1981, the plaintiff had a second full time job as a tradesman assistant for the newspaper which he would perform after his job at the abattoir.
In 1983, the plaintiff met his ex-wife, with whom he had three daughters.
In 1984, (33 years prior to the incident that is the subject of these proceedings). the plaintiff injured his left shoulder in the boning room of an abattoir when he was knocked to the ground by a freezer door that came off its hinges. As a result of the injury, the plaintiff was not able to work for approximately three to four months. Workers’ compensation was awarded in the form of a lump sum payment. He says he fully recovered from this left shoulder injury.
In 1984, the plaintiff injured his left wrist from a fall from which he fully recovered.
In about 1985, at age 23, the plaintiff purchased a tipper truck, trailer, and bobcat. The plaintiff started a bobcat business and continued to work part time in the boning room. By 1987, the plaintiff was working full time in his bob cat business.
In 1987, he married his partner Wendy, with whom he would go onto have three children with: Jessica, Emily and Caitlyn.
Around 1989-1991, the plaintiff also started a landscape supply business with his brother and nephew, but it was not successful.
In 1996, the plaintiff branched into the skip bin business.
In 1999, the plaintiff and his then wife, purchased the 5-acre, XXX Road Property at Cranborne and undertook renovations. In 2004, the plaintiff separated from Wendy.
Between 1996 and 2010 the plaintiff’s business was contracting with the City of Kingston.
In 2002, the plaintiff experienced some lower back pain and took a week off work to heal. He rested, took some pain relief, he says that he made a full recovery.
The plaintiff was cross-examined about this injury to his lower back in 2002, twenty years prior to the subject incident, and about an attendance at Frankstown hospital (T62.37). It was the plaintiff’s evidence (T62.40):

“A. Going back 20 years ago, I had an injury, yes. A prior injury. I never – never stated that I had pain for 20 years.”

Additionally, he adequately explained the non-reporting of his 2002 back injury to the medico-legal experts (T53.2-10):

“Q. You did not tell Dr Moran about your back issues in 2002, did you?
A. I did not have a major issue in 2002 that I regarded that I had to disclose.
Q. Sorry, so pain that became severe while driving your truck so that you could only lie on the floor being the most comfortable position, that wasn’t a significant enough back injury for you to tell Dr Moran. Is that what you’re saying?
A. No, because I did not lose a large amount of time out of work. I regarded it as a back pain.”

In 2005, the plaintiff’s business began contracting with Sunnybank Horticulture. This work steadily increased over time and by 2012, the plaintiff was carrying out all of Sunnybank’s excavation work, rubbish removal and landscape preparations.
In 2006, the plaintiff met his current partner, Michelle Burgess. They subsequently moved in together at the XXX Road Property, Cranborne, Victoria.
In February 2010, the plaintiff consulted Dr Jenkins (‘GP’) about his neck pain and migraines. The plaintiff’s daughter had been struggling following the untimely death of her friend, and the plaintiff had been dealing with elevated stress because of this as well as financial pressures. The plaintiff was unable to recall aspects of the consultations, on the basis that consultation had occurred 13 years prior during a stressful period for his family.
From 2010 to 2016, the plaintiff’s business was employed by developer Dr Effat Farag to perform a variety of services including excavation and bin collection. The developer maintained an array of companies that he would contract under for each new project. Dr Farag would subsequently default on payment to various contractors and then avoid liability by entering each of his companies into voluntary liquidation. The caused the plaintiff to suffer a large financial loss.
In December 2015, the plaintiff took a week off work citing lower back pain and then returned to working full time.
In April 2017, the plaintiff scratched an eye when he walked into a branch. His eye fully recovered.
By 2017, the sub-contracting work with Sunnybank continued to expand. In August 2017, Sunnybank obtained a 6-year contract with the city of Casey.
Prior to his injury on the cruise, the plaintiff enjoyed water-ski racing. In 2007 he obtained a medical certificate for ski racing Australia, a mandatory requirement for obtaining permission to take part in ski racing events. He was also involved in horse racing, having gained his stable hand licence in 2012.
In June 2017, the plaintiff’s house unexpectedly flooded when a braided hose burst in an upstairs bathroom. The consequent flooding caused a serious mould issue within the house. There is still an ongoing legal dispute with the insurer.
Prior to the cruise, the plaintiff says that he was working full time without any restrictions and was in a long-term relationship with Michelle. The plaintiff claims that he did not have any debilitating issues regarding his neck or left shoulder. He also claims that he did not experience headaches and had no psychological illness or disability. The plaintiff says that he was functioning normally, happy and fit and he had the reasonable expectation of a long gainfully employed career.
It is convenient that I now record my findings of the injuries sustained in the cruise incident (‘first incident’) and the second injury about one month later in the bathroom of Trios Sports Club (‘the club’). These incidents (‘the bathroom incident’) form the basis of my findings on causation.

The cruise incident

At about 3.30pm on 19 November 2017, the plaintiff, while a passenger on a 10-day cruise aboard the defendant’s cruise liner, sustained an alleged injury when the step that he tread on to descend into a pool area broke and fell away causing the plaintiff to drop, unexpectedly and suddenly, onto a tiled area approximately 30cm below.
It is the plaintiff’s evidence that he dropped vertically landing heavily onto the balls of his feet and claims that he experienced a jolt or jarring which caused pain in his neck and shoulders.
The incident was recorded on closed-circuit television (‘CCTV’) which was shown at the trial (CB Tab 7.2). There are also photographs of the broken step (CB.488-494).

The cruise incident – My factual findings

After viewing the CCTV footage numerous times, I make the following factual findings in relation to the cruise incident that occurred on 17 November 2019:

As the plaintiff was taking his first step onto the pool deck surround, he put his left foot first and then bringing his second foot down on the step, when the long wooden plank that was a step broke. At that time, his right arm was hovering just above the top right railing.

While the plaintiff was still standing upright when the step gave way, he descended a short distance, estimated to be a maximum of 30 cm and landed on both his feet. The momentum caused by the incident caused his torso to move a little forward.

When the plaintiff landed on both feet, he still remained upright. His left arm moved to rest onto the railing on the left, while his torso twisted counter clockwise.

The plaintiff then took four to six small hobbling type steps to the left in order to observe the broken wooden step. In the CCTV, he points to someone not in the pool, but in his sight (whoever that person is not viewable in the CCTV footage). After a pause he seems to be making an assessment as to how to go about picking up the plank. He did not hit his neck nor his left shoulder.

The plaintiff did not fall or land on his left side.

The plaintiff then bent over and picked up the long wooden plank with his right arm. He then uses both arms to rebalance the long wooden plank to an almost horizontal position, so he could manoeuvre the wooden plank approximately 90 degrees to the right and position it on the side of the pool.

The plaintiff then briefly performed a small jig or dance type movement.

He did not need assistance to get out of the pool.

I accept his evidence that he sat in a chair by the pool for about 40 mins.

After the accident

These factual findings form the basis of my opinions. At 4:20 pm, he reported pain in his left ankle, neck and left shoulder. On the patient registration form, his main complaint was recorded as “neck and ankle”.

The plaintiff’s evidence after the cruise incident

The plaintiff’s evidence as to what occurred after the incident as follows. He was able to get out of the pool without any assistance. He sat in a chair by the pool for approximately forty minutes before attending the ship’s medical clinic where he reported pain at the left ankle, neck, and left shoulder. At about 4.20pm, the plaintiff informed a security officer, Ms Amy Graham, who had witnessed the incident that “he was going to pop into the medical just in case as his shoulder was now hurting” (CB.495).
At 4:43pm, the plaintiff attended the ship’s medical clinic at about 4.43pm. At about 4.36 pm, he completed the patient registration form (CB.504-505). His main complaint recorded:

What is your main complaint today and when did it start?
Neck & Ankle
Today (pool ladder collapsed)

On the second page of the registration form (CB.505), signed by the plaintiff and dated 18 November 2017, the plaintiff ticked the following boxes in response to the question “Do you have any of the following symptoms?”:

✔ Tiredness
✔ Dizziness
✔ Neck Swelling
✔ Joint aches or pains stiffness

At 4:43pm, the cruise’s medical clinic records (CB.499 – 503) at 4.43 pm:

“Patient attends clinic for injury to neck and left ankle…
Step broke leading into swimming pool – injury to left ankle and neck - ? whiplash type neck injury” (Ex A 499)
“ACCIDENT ALONG POOL
As reported, at 15h30 whilst stepping over raised wooden area around pool, wooden plank gave away and patient went straight (approximately 50cm) down straight onto both his feet. Patient denies falling forward.
Denies preceding symptoms. No direct head or neck trauma reported. No fall from excess height. No loss of consciousness reported. Shortly after accident, guest noticed mild pain in his left foot. 40 minutes post-accident experienced mild discomfort in bilateral trapezius muscle area.
Patient did not take any oral analgesia. No previous neck or ankle/foot injuries reported” (Ex A 500)

At about 4.46 pm the plaintiff signed a ‘Statement of Accident’ (CB.496), noting that the matter was reported to “Youth Security” at about “3.30 pm roughly” (CB.496).
While the plaintiff ticked boxes for symptom of tiredness, dizziness, neck swelling and joint aches or pain and stiffness. He denied the other symptoms, namely:

“No direct head or neck trauma reported. No fall from excess height. No loss of consciousness reported. Shortly after accident, guest [the plaintiff] noticed mild pain in his left foot. 40 minutes post-accident experienced mild discomfort in bilateral trapezius muscle area.
Additional note: Cervical/lumbar spine: no midline tenderness or steps noted. Tenderness over bilateral trapezius muscles – less proximal/more distal area. Pain on rotation of neck in bilateral trapezius areas.
Left ankle/foot: no swelling, bruising or deformity noted. No bony tenderness over entire left ankle or foot. Full range of pain-free bilateral ankle and foot movement. Ankle integrity intact.
Patient has no cervical midline tenderness with good range of neck movement. Tenderness over distal trapezius muscle area. No fall from excess height.”
…

At 5.14pm on the day of the incident, the plaintiff was examined by Dr Rainer Guenzel, the ship’s medical practitioner, who recorded:

Additional note: Cervical/lumbar spine: no midline tenderness or steps noted. Tenderness over bilateral trapezius muscles – less proximal/more distal area. Pain on rotation of neck in bilateral trapezius areas.
Left ankle/foot: no swelling, bruising or deformity noted. No bony tenderness over entire left ankle or foot. Full range of pain-free bilateral ankle and foot movement. Ankle integrity intact.

At 5.18pm on the same day, Dr Guenzel recorded:

“Patient has no cervical midline tenderness with good range of neck movement. Tenderness over distal trapezius muscle area. No fall from excess height.”

The plaintiff was provided with paracetamol tablets, 500 mg and directed to take “2 Pills every six (6) hours staring Nov 19, 2017 17:16UTC + 10:00 for 1 week(s)” (CB.501).
The plaintiff says that he continued the cruise but in pain (T45.6-7; T45.13-19). The Panadol prescribed did not resolve his symptoms (T44.13-14). However, the plaintiff did not request a stronger form of analgesic medication.
Following the incident, the plaintiff was able to participate in activities as part of the cruise including snorkelling and day trips (T1.46-50).
The plaintiff said he complained to his daughters he was in pain, but he did not complain to the defendant’s staff.

Between the cruise incident up to the bathroom incident

On 24 November 2017, the plaintiff completed the cruise and disembarked from the ship in Brisbane, Queensland.
The plaintiff attended a cricket match in Brisbane, before returning to Melbourne by plane on Saturday night (CB.177), arriving in Melbourne on the evening of 25 November 2017.
The plaintiff claims that he resumed work upon his return to Victoria but was only performing light duties. There is no medical certificate in evidence to support the plaintiff’s need to do light duties immediately upon his return.
On 22 August 2019, the plaintiff’s GP, Dr Paul Jenkins stated in a report that the plaintiff provided the following history:

“He stated that he was stepping down onto a step (on the pool deck). The step collapsed under him. Peter fell vertically the height of one step. He landed awkwardly, and then fell to his left onto his left shoulder. He stated that he had neck and spine pain as well as left shoulder pain.”

The above history recorded to Dr Jenkins does not accord with his report of the incident to those employed by the defendant as set out earlier in this judgment.
On 4 December 2017, Dr Jenkins gave a referral to the plaintiff to obtain an MRI scan. The plaintiff did not undergo the MRI until 29 December 2017 (CB.597). However, by the time the MRI was conducted after the bathroom incident that occurred.
On 9 December 2017, the plaintiff attended the emergency department of Frankston Hospital, due to an episode where the plaintiff lost consciousness at the Fountain Gate shopping centre (T51.20-41). The discharge summary of Frankstown hospital refers to the plaintiff having neck and shoulder pain (CB.507).
Sometime between the 4 December 2017 to 21 December 2017, the plaintiff underwent an x-ray and CT scan of the cervical spine at the hospital.
I accept that during the period from 19 November 2019 to 21 December 2017, the plaintiff was capable of and performed the following activities, snorkelling, participating in onshore activities and day trips in Papua New Guinea as part of the subject cruise. He spent the full day at a test match at the Gabba cricket ground, to do so he took a commercial flight from Brisbane to Melbourne, walked around the Fountain Gate shopping centre and then attended a social Christmas lunch at a bar with friends on 21 December 2017, where the bathroom incident occurred.

The bathroom incident on 21 December 2017

There are no witnesses of the plaintiff’s bathroom incident that occurred in the bathroom on the 21 December 2019, some weeks after the incident on the cruise.
The plaintiff had attended a Christmas party at the club. After lunch, the plaintiff went to the bathroom toilet cubicle. He was found approximately 45 minutes later.
What has been factually substantiated in the bathroom incident is as follows:
The plaintiff was found fully dressed. The plaintiff had fallen with enough force to cause the porcelain bowl of the toilet to break.
The plaintiff’s evidence is that he only remembers what happened after he had woken up in the cubicle (T.59.45).
The plaintiff gave evidence that when he gained consciousness, he remembered two or three people, one of which he believed to be a security guard yelling to him to unlatch the cubicle door. He describes making three attempts to unlatch the lock but failing three times and falling back, eventually smashing the toilet bowl.

“And then when I was awoken, I – there was two or three people. One was security, I think it was. They were standing over the side of the toilet, yelling at me to open up the door. And they woke me up. I reached up to open the door. I went to flick the catch. I missed the catch, and I fell backwards. The second time, they kept yelling at me, I opened up the door catch. The door came back, and I fell flat backwards onto the toilet. And the – that – smashed the toilet bowl as I landed on it. But at no stage did I hit my head.
A. Well, from when I woke up to the time when I knew three actions of me trying up the door – then when I landed on the toilet, and that cistern broke – I can recall that.
Q. You don’t have a memory of what occurred before that when you passed out, do you?
A. No, I don’t. I don’t.”

A friend’s wife drove him home. He was taken to hospital by one of his daughters. At the hospital, the plaintiff’s blood alcohol level that was recorded was 0.133, a considerably high reading.
On 21 December 2017, the plaintiff attended a lunchtime Christmas function at the club. After a while during the lunch, the plaintiff visited the bathroom. After 45 minutes, the plaintiff was found unconscious in a toilet cubicle.
The plaintiff’s evidence is as follows:

From my recollections, I left the table, I went to the toilet, and I cannot remember even going in for the toilet. And then I woke up when I was attended to by three other people (T69.32-34).

When the plaintiff was found, he was fully clothed and sitting on the toilet seat. The plaintiff does not know the force with which he collapsed or as to whether he struck his head or either shoulder against the back or side walls of the cubicle as he fell. The plaintiff’s oral evidence confirmed as much when he stated:

“-my guess – would be hard for me to hit my head and land back on the toilet.
…
Q. You don’t have a memory of what occurred before that when you passed out, do you?
A. No, I don’t. I don’t” (T61.11-33).

The plaintiff’s evidence is when he regained consciousness, he sustained three impacts in quick succession when he:

“reached up to open the door. I went to flick the catch. I missed the catch, and I fell backwards. The second time, they kept yelling at me to open up the door catch. I reached forward, tried to turn the door catch, and I missed again. The third time, when they yelled at me, I opened the door catch. The door come back, and I fell flat backwards onto the toilet. And the – that – smashed the toilet bowl as I landed on it” (T61.14-20).

The plaintiff was assisted from the Club by his friends. He was driven home by the wife of one of his friends. Once the plaintiff arrived home, he was immediately taken to the Emergency Department of the hospital by his two daughters (T58.31-32), where he was admitted that afternoon and remained in hospital overnight. The hospital clinical notes records show a fracture to the right orbital as “not acute”. The plaintiff says that while in hospital, he was not told that the right orbital fracture was caused by the bathroom fall.
After the bathroom fall, the plaintiff’s x-ray revealed a non-acute orbital fracture that may or may not have been linked to the incident. After the fall the plaintiff was subjected to extensive medical investigation, but no cerebrovascular conditions were found to account for the episode.
Because of the plaintiff’s inebriated state and his lack of consciousness and it follows, his lack of actual memory, his version of events is not accepted by this court, as the plaintiff bears the onus of proof and he had failed to discharge it: see section 5E of the Civil Liability Act.

The plaintiff’s credibility

It is convenient that I now record my findings on the plaintiff’s credibility.
I carefully observed the plaintiff while he was giving evidence and during cross examination. I reluctantly concluded that the plaintiff tailored his evidence to portray himself to this court in his most favourable light. The plaintiff gave inconsistent accounts as to how the cruise incident occurred to the medical experts and to the court, some of these examples given below are minor when viewed overall, they illustrate the unreliability of the plaintiff’s evidence.
When reviewing the histories from the plaintiff that include health professionals. I have approached them with the usual caution for the reasons set out in Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320 at [8] (cited with approval in Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227 at [2]).
I do not accept the evidence given by the plaintiff on these following topics: firstly, his account of the incident on the cruise which took place on the 19 November 2017. I carefully viewed the CCTV footage many times, the plaintiff did not drop down onto the pool deck on his left side, nor did he hit his left shoulder. Further, I do not accept his version of the incident in the bathroom cubicle which took place on 21 December 2017.
The plaintiff provided medico-legal experts where he provided differing versions of events regarding the cruise incident.
Prof Dennerstein’s report dated 22 June 2018 records at (CB.176-177) that the plaintiff described the incident to her in the following terms:

“As he climbed down the timber steps from the spa deck to the pool deck, the bottom step and the fascia board it was attached to collapsed. He was jolted down onto the tiled pool deck and then on both heels and rolled the left ankle. He fell and landed on his left side. Others at the pool area saw what had happened and they came over and helped him up. A security man came quickly. He was assisted back to his chair.”

The above description was provided to Prof Dennerstein in consultation on 20 June 2018, approximately 8 months after the incident, but before the CCTV had been provided to the plaintiff’s legal representatives. It is one of the earliest reports of the incident that the plaintiff has provided in connection with the legal proceedings. The plaintiff agreed the account of the incident as a reasonably accurate description of the incident as depicted in the CCTV footage. On my factual findings, there was no “security man who assisted the plaintiff back to his chair.”
During cross-examination as to his history provided to Prof Dennerstein, the plaintiff did not accept that the above was not an accurate account of the cruise incident and provided the following evidence:

Q. You told her that you fell and landed on your left side. Do you remember telling her that?
A. I don't recall telling her that, from memory.
Q. Would you accept that if you had said that you'd landed on your left side, that would be wrong?
A. From my belief, that I come down on the balls of my feet, and I’ve moved to the left hand side.
Q. So your evidence is that what you think happened was that you moved to the left hand side, and that's what you think you told Dr Dennerstein?
A. I think so, from memory, it's a long time ago.” (T1.46.15 – 40).

However, his account changed slightly in attempt to reconcile it with the CCTV footage.
As set out earlier in this judgment, the plaintiff did not fall or land on his left side. The plaintiff did not require the assistance of other people to get up and there is no evidence that the plaintiff required any assistance to return to his chair following the incident and no security guard came over to him. This is illustrative of the plaintiff’s consistent attempts to advocate a position in the belief that it will support his case, even when confronted with an obvious inconsistency.
Prof Dennerstein’s and Dr Samuell’s evidence in relation to the plaintiff’s inaccurate history is as follows:

“WITNESS DENNERSTEIN: Okay. So it seemed - yeah. So it was a different account. Dr Samuell noted, also, that it was a different account. And that concerned us, you know - because we are basing what we - what - our judgment on what this person has told us. And there were some - sort of - I think what we were trying to get at in the preamble - let me just go back to that - was that there was a sort of - seemed to be a building‑up of what had happened in this particular incident compared to other incidents that were going on in his life. Especially what was happening with the house - which seemed an extraordinary amount of stress to me‑‑
WITNESS DENNERSTEIN: Yeah. And it’s still going on. And - and had led to, you know, the breakdown of the whole family structure. Girls having to move out, as you’ve told me. Living in a very small area. And then his partner having to move out. You know? The whole circumstances seemed to be extremely stressful, but weren’t talk - weren’t discussed by him, or were minimised. And then the fall - what he told of the fall seemed to be‑‑
HER HONOUR: Well, he didn’t‑‑
WITNESS DENNERSTEIN: ‑‑more than‑‑
HER HONOUR: He didn’t fall.
WITNESS DENNERSTEIN: Yep. Well - yes. Exactly. He seemed to - maybe he got jolted, or something, when the step gave way. But it wasn’t he fell onto his side in the pool. I mean, I was even wondering if he’d gone underwater when he told it to me. But he - he hadn’t indicated that. So I just - it just made us concerned. And we thought we needed to put that in. And tell me if I’m wrong, Dr Samuell. Because it - it raised concerns about his general veracity.
WITNESS SAMUELL: I agree.” (T238).

The plaintiff was next assessed by Professor Teddy, neurosurgeon on 9 November 2021. Professor Teddy records the plaintiff’s description of the incident in the following terms:

“He was on board a ship and planning to walk down into the pool, moving from one level to another. The wooden step on which he was standing collapsed and he fell an estimated 30 to 50 cm onto the balls of his feet. He rolled towards the left. He felt no immediate pain but sat in a deck chair the next 15 minutes as he was developing progressively more pain.”

The CCTV footage of the incident does not show the plaintiff rolling to the left.
The plaintiff was assessed by Dr Peter Moran, orthopaedic surgeon in October 2021. Dr Moran recorded the plaintiff’s description of the incident as follows:

“He went to step down from the spa deck to the pool deck, a distance of between 400 and 500 mm. He said that the drop was softened by an interim step, but when he put his weight on the step, it collapsed such that he fell through the step, his heels striking the ground before he rolled to the left side
He said that he had gotten up unassisted, but then he felt unwell and was forced to sit down” (CB.66 – 67).

The plaintiff was examined by Dr Peter Blombery, consultant physician with specialisation in pain medicine, on 8 November 2021. The description recorded by Dr Blombery is the first instance where the plaintiff does not include in his account the description of “rolling” or falling onto his left side.
However, Dr Blombery recorded that the plaintiff fell approximately 60 cm during the incident and, in his supplementary report dated 3 October 2022, after viewing the CCTV footage of the incident, Dr Blombery states that the plaintiff, “would have fallen a maximum of 30 cm as he did not go down even to the level of his knee.” Under cross-examination, the plaintiff accepted that the step is no higher than 30 centimetres from the tiles below it (T1.42.46 – 47).
The above examples drawn from the plaintiff’s examinations, oral evidence, and CCTV footage, illustrate the plaintiff’s willingness to alter the story of how the incident occurred.

Neck Movement

On examination, after the cruise incident, the medical practitioner recorded a correct history as to how the incident occurred and no direct head or neck trauma was reported. No fall from excess height. No loss of consciousness reported. Shortly after incident, guest noticed mild pain in his left foot. 40 minutes post-incident experienced mild discomfort in bilateral trapezius muscle area.
Dr Courtenay’s report notes that, during the formal part of the examination the plaintiff displayed significant restrictions of movement, however in the informal part of the interview showed no signs of noticeable restrictions or pain (CB. 207).
The final discharge summary from the Hospital following the plaintiff’s admission on 24 November 2019, records under the heading “Principal Diagnosis” that the plaintiff “complains unable to move neck but moving freely during review” (CB 88).
In his report dated 9 November 2021, Professor Teddy noted in relation to the plaintiff that:

“Mr Langdon exhibited virtually no neck movements and all attempts at neck movement were accompanied by grimacing . . . He did appear quite mobile and generally freely moving when talking” (CB 87-88).

Prior to this next exchange recorded on the transcript, I carefully observed the plaintiff while he was giving evidence and being cross-examined while in the witness box. To my observation the plaintiff was moving his neck freely. Hence my comment recorded in the transcript. The plaintiff claimed, lack of ability to move his neck more freely, was also contradicted during his oral evidence in court. The transcript reads as follows:

“O’NEILL
Q. You told her that you can’t turn your head. That’s not true either. Is it?
A. Yes. I can turn my head. But I have to take in small increments, so I can’t turn sharply.
HER HONOUR: While you’re doing that, you just did turn your neck sharply.
WITNESS: Yeah. But not as in like a - a full turn to the right or a full tilt. I can go to the right more than I can go to the left.”

It is my view that the plaintiff was exaggerating the lack of movement is his neck and did a very bad job of it. I do not accept his evidence that has restricted movement in his neck.

Inconsistencies in versions of the bathroom incident

There are further inconsistencies evident in the account given by the plaintiff regarding his fall in the bathroom on the 21 December 2017.
There are inconsistencies with the plaintiff’s evidence concerning his alcohol consumption on the day. The clinical notes taken from the Hospital recorded that the plaintiff usually drinks 1 – 2 beers each Thursday. However, on 21 December 2017 when he had the bathroom fall, his blood alcohol level was 0.133 (CB. 519).
In the plaintiff’s evidentiary statement dated 19 February 2021, the plaintiff, stated that by the time of the blackout, “I had not been drinking heavily at the time; I only had about 3 beers and was halfway through my lunch” (CB.404, para 34).
In the plaintiff’s latter evidentiary statement dated 23 December 2022, he stated that he had consumed “about 8 beers throughout the day” (CB, 415, para 30). This account is more consistent with the Hospital clinical notes that stated that he drank 4 stubbies and “4 pots” (CB.514).
The plaintiff’s oral evidence on the amount of alcohol that he had consumed up to the blackout on 21 December 2017 was as follows:

“Q. You see at paragraph 30, at 415.
HER HONOUR: Yes, in your statement
WITNESS: ..(not transcribable)..statement.
HER HONOUR: Yes.
WITNESS: Which one is it?
O’NEILL
Q. Paragraph 30.
A. Yes.
Q. You see there it says, “I had about eight beers throughout the day, and I was having constant neck pain”. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I think you've just said that that should read three. Is that right? Three beers.
A. Well, in it - if that's converted to a standard glass, I was drinking pints. I had three beers. I regard that, that that would equivalent - be roughly the equivalent of eight standard beers.
Q. So, the distinction that you're drawing is the size of a glass. Is that right?
A. Yes, correct. Convert - if you convert it back to a standard drink.
Q. You said when you attended at Frankston, you told them that you had eight beers. Do you remember saying that to them?
A. I don't recall.”

The handwritten hospital progress notes dated the following day relevantly record the following:

“Nil imaging post fall
Nil radiation of pain to leg/arm
. . .
Feels as if lump in base of neck
Associated “stiffness” of neck
Cruise was in New Guinea denies bites
Denies fever
Wakes up with a mild headache in AM post fall
Unrefreshing sleep since cruise
. . .
Hasn’t been driving
. . .
Takes 2 x Panadol in AM” (CB.530).

The relevance of the above entry is that from the incident on the cruise up to 21 December 2017, the plaintiff’s symptoms of pain at the neck and left shoulder are mild. The plaintiff did not experience any radiation of pain to the legs or arms, describes the sensation in the neck as a “lump” and “stiffness”, wakes up with a mild headache in the morning; and takes two Panadol. The progress notes of Peninsula Health from the plaintiff’s attendance at the Hospital on 21 December 2017 relevantly record the following:

“56 yr old male presented to ED post fall – Unwitnessed fall
Pt went to bathroom and friends found him on the floor unresponsive . . .
Pt is c/o headache and sensitivity to light.
. . .
Pts Daughter reported a mechanical fall 1/52 ago where plaintiff fell back and hit his head/neck. Since then pt experienced multiple unconscious episodes and recurring headaches
. . .
Pt went to bathroom and approximately 45/60 later friends found pt on toilet floor unconscious, toilet porcelain smashed? Friends however never reported this to daughter
. . .
1/12 pt fell on cruise ship, step gave way and pt fell hitting neck. Treated with Panadol however nil imaging attended. Snorkelled whilst on cruise.” (CB 513 – 514).”

The extract refers to a mechanical fall one week before the current presentation to the hospital and refers to the incident separately, such that the reference to a “mechanical fall” that occurred one week prior, is clearly not the same incident as “1/12 pt fell on cruise ship”. The two falls are recorded as distinct events.
Other than Dr Dalton, the plaintiff did not disclose that he undertook a holiday to Bali in 2019 during any medicolegal assessment. While on that holiday, the plaintiff rode a motor scooter, which required the turning of his head, and also participated in snorkelling.
The plaintiff’s evidentiary statement at [81] stated, “I don’t think I can now travel overseas or long distances due to my injuries as it causes me too much pain” (CB.421). However, he undertook a trip to Bali in 2019. I find this surprising.

At the cricket at the MCG

During cross-examination, the plaintiff was shown a photograph of himself with three women, that he accepted was at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. The photo is dated 12 January 2020 and captioned, “Ready for a Big Show – with Jess Langdon and Cait Langdon at Melbourne Cricket Ground.”
Comments that the plaintiff himself has made on that photo include “Stoinis is on fire” and “147 not out”. There is also a video of the MCG in the comments section under the comment “147 not out”, that was posted on the plaintiff’s Facebook profile.
It was put to the plaintiff that that photo was taken in January 2020 in the following terms:

“Q. Turn over again to page 5. Now these smiley people - two of them are your daughters. Correct?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. You’re depicted in the far left.
A. Yes, correct.
Q. This was taken at the MCG.
A. Yes, correct.
Q. In January 2020, wasn’t it?
A. No it was not.
Q. It wasn’t?
A. No. That is a shared picture from a previous time.
Q. Right. When was it taken?
A. That would have been roughly 2016, I would estimate.”

The cricket match in which Marcus Stoinis scored 147 not out, was played on 12 January 2020, being the date of the subject picture. That cricket match was played at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, which is the same ground that the plaintiff has tagged. His daughter agreed.
The plaintiff was shown further photographs [Ex 3] that depict him working at a job site. The plaintiff identified the picture as having been taken in 2017. The plaintiff did not correct his evidence about the date of this picture until it pointed out by the defendant that the people in the picture were wearing masks in response to precautions introduced to guard against COVID-19, which significantly post-dates 2017.
As previously stated, I have reservations as to the reliability of the plaintiff’s evidence where it is uncorroborated. It is my view that the plaintiff sought to portray himself in a favourable light so has tailored his evidence to do so.
As previously stated, the defendant has admitted a breach of duty of care as set out in sections 5B and 5C of the CLA. Causation is the most highly disputed issue in these proceedings.
Section 5D and 5E of the CLA sets out the relevant test for causation. Section 5D and 5E of the CLA read:

5D General principles
(1) A determination that negligence caused particular harm comprises the following elements--
(a) that the negligence was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm ("factual causation"), and
(b) that it is appropriate for the scope of the negligent person's liability to extend to the harm so caused ("scope of liability" .
(2) In determining in an exceptional case, in accordance with established principles, whether negligence that cannot be established as a necessary condition of the occurrence of harm should be accepted as establishing factual causation, the court is to consider (amongst other relevant things) whether or not and why responsibility for the harm should be imposed on the negligent party.
(3) If it is relevant to the determination of factual causation to determine what the person who suffered harm would have done if the negligent person had not been negligent--
(a) the matter is to be determined subjectively in the light of all relevant circumstances, subject to paragraph (b), and
(b) any statement made by the person after suffering the harm about what he or she would have done is inadmissible except to the extent (if any) that the statement is against his or her interest.
(4) For the purpose of determining the scope of liability, the court is to consider (amongst other relevant things) whether or not and why responsibility for the harm should be imposed on the negligent party.
5E Onus of proof
In proceedings relating to liability for negligence, the plaintiff always bears the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, any fact relevant to the issue of causation.

As the High Court explained in Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375 at [14], [16]:

“[14] The distinction now drawn by s 5D(1) between factual causation and scope of liability should not be obscured by judicial glosses. A determination in accordance with s 5D(1)(a) that negligence was a necessary condition of the occurrence of harm is entirely factual, turning on proof by the plaintiff of relevant facts on the balance of probabilities in accordance with s 5E. A determination in accordance with s 5D(1)(b) that it is appropriate for the scope of the negligent person’s liability to extend to the harm so caused is entirely normative, turning in accordance with s 5D(4) on consideration by a court of (amongst other relevant things) whether or not, and if so why, responsibility for the harm should be imposed on the negligent party.
…
[16] The determination of factual causation in accordance with s 5D(1)(a) involves nothing more or less than the application of a “but for” test of causation. That is to say, a determination in accordance with s 5D(1)(a) that negligence was a necessary condition of the occurrence of harm is nothing more or less than a determination on the balance of probabilities that the harm that in fact occurred would not have occurred absent the negligence.”

In Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak [2009] HCA 48, the High Court stated at [41]-[44]:

[41] The first point to make about the question of causation is that, in these cases, it is governed by the Civil Liability Act.
[42] Section 5D(1) of that Act divides the determination of whether negligence caused particular harm into two elements: factual causation and scope of liability.
[43] Dividing the issue of causation in this way expresses the relevant questions in a way that may differ from what was said by Mason CJ, in March v Stramare (E & M H) Pty Ltd, to be the common law's approach to causation. The references in March v Stramare to causation being "ultimately a matter of common sense" were evidently intended to disapprove the proposition "that value judgment has, or should have, no part to play in resolving causation as an issue of fact". By contrast, s 5D(1) treats factual causation and scope of liability as separate and distinct issues.
[44] It is not necessary to examine whether or to what extent the approach to causation described in March v Stramare might lead to a conclusion about factual causation different from the conclusion that should be reached by applying s 5D(1). It is sufficient to observe that, in cases where the Civil Liability Act or equivalent statutes are engaged, it is the applicable statutory provision that must be applied.

The plaintiff’s submissions

The plaintiff has submitted that causation has been established both medically and factually on the following bases: For seven and a half years before the injury on the ship, the plaintiff worked full time in his excavation, skip bin and landscape preparation business. He was also involved in horse racing, water skiing, camping and travel, and was able to manage all indoor and outdoor related tasks (CB.424). Since February 2010, the plaintiff had no history of neck complaints. The neck issues around February 2020 were caused by stress (T75.30-50). The radiography evidence supports the conclusion that prior to the incident on the ship, the plaintiff had pre-existing but asymptomatic degenerative changes in his cervical spine (CB.737). The incident on the ship involved a sudden, unexpected drop onto a tiled surface (CB.414). The plaintiff attended the ship’s medical clinic within an hour of the incident complaining of neck pain (CB.499-501). The plaintiff explained in evidence that for the remainder of the cruise, he experienced headaches and neck pain (CB.415).
Upon returning home, the plaintiff consulted his general practitioner Dr Paul Jenkins about his neck pain and booked the first available appointment on 4 December 2017 (CB.415). He provided a history of the step collapsing and landing awkwardly (CB.595; T54.1-10).
On 9 December 2017 (5 days after consulting Dr Jenkins), the plaintiff experienced dizziness while at Gateway Shopping Centre (T54.50-55.3). The plaintiff did not fall but was forced to sit down. At the Hospital, the plaintiff complained of neck pain and left shoulder pain. The defendant’s submissions place heavy emphasis on the bathroom fall of 21 December 2017. There were no witnesses (CB.513).
The following is known about the bathroom fall. The plaintiff was at the club for a Christmas lunch. The plaintiff had some beer, possibly eight (although his evidence is not clear on this point). The plaintiff went to the bathroom and passed out. The plaintiff was found sometime later in the bathroom unconscious. Records suggest the plaintiff was found about 45 minutes later, but the exact time is unknown. The plaintiff went home, and his daughter Jessica subsequently took him to the hospital. [I have already set this out in detail earlier in this judgment].
During cross examination of the plaintiff regarding the bathroom incident, the plaintiff’s evidence was that he did not know if he had hit his head on the wall or the toilet seat after he blacked out in the cubicle, he did however deny hitting his head at all (T59-61).
In cross-examination, the plaintiff denied having any facial injury following the bathroom incident (T59.19-26):

“Q. Did you have a black eye after the 21 December fall?
A. No
Q. You’d broken your eye, hadn’t you?
A. No.
Q. You’d hit the toilet hard enough for it to break – you’d accept that.
A. When I fell backwards on the toilet”-

I interpose, tellingly, “his guess” was what had occurred in the cubicle and how the toilet bowl had been broken (T61.10-20):

“Q. Is that photograph the basis upon which you arrive at the conclusion that your head did not hit the toilet bowl or the wall?
A. At that stage, I knew – when I was blacked out on the toilet – that I would – daresay it – my guess – would be hard for me to hit my head and land back on the toilet. And then when I was awoken, I – there was two or three people. One was security, I think it was. They were standing over the side of the toilet, yelling at me to open up the door. And they woke me up. I reached up to open the door. I went to flick the catch. I missed the catch, and I fell backwards. The second time, they kept yelling at me, I opened up the door catch. The door come back, and I fell flat backwards onto the toilet. And the – that – smashed the toilet bowl as I landed on it. But at no stage did I hit my head.”

The plaintiff admitted that he had no memory of what occurred when he had passed out but appeared to be sure of how the toilet cistern broke (T61.25-30):

“Q. The words – you used the word “guess” in that answer. That’s the best it is isn’t it? It’s a guess.
A. Well, from when I woke up to the time when I knew three actions of me trying up the door – then when I landed on the toilet, and that cistern broke – I can recall that.
Q. You don’t have a memory of what occurred before that when you passed out, do you?
A. No, I don’t. I don’t.”

According to the hospital clinical records, when he presented on examination, the plaintiff was alert and oriented in time and place. He presented with a Glasgow Coma Scale of 15. The records stated that the plaintiff had been experiencing recurring headaches, increasing fatigue and bouts of drowsiness since the cruise incident. The plaintiff was thoroughly examined at the hospital. There was no record of any facial bruising, abrasions, or swelling in any of the clinical notes from the hospital (CB.514).
The hospital discharge summary recorded the following (CB.513):

“HOPC
1 month ago, was on a boat, step collapsed and fell through step.
Developed back pain
Went to GP who organised MRI back
Also has a lump in back
Sleepiness
Sleeps for 2hrs everyday
Drinks 1-2 beers every Thursday
Daughters concerned about unconscious collapse, does not believe OSA nil seizure activities witnessed
Today, when to a Christmas party
Had 8 beers
…
Cannot remember what happened
Found in toilet 45 min later
Nil cough, sputum, SOB, CP
Nil abdo pain, dysuria, bowel prb
Nil fever, shakes and chills
Nil LOW
Nil vomit”

According to the plaintiff, there is no reliable evidence that the plaintiff sustained a head strike, or the toilet being smashed by the plaintiff’s head, but the onus on the plaintiff to prove, on the balance of probabilities what actually occurred. A CT scan of the head and cervical spine revealed no subdural haematoma which excluded a head injury.
The defendant relied upon an injury to the medial orbital wall of the right socket as evidence of a head strike on the bathroom incident. A minimally displaced fracture at the medial orbital wall on the right which did not appear acute was however noted within the records:

“#Chronic right minimally displaced fracture at the medial obital wall nil nasal discharge or ophthalmoplegia” (Ex A 519)
“#Chronic medial orbital wall fracture
-seen on CTB
-no diplopia, no nasal drip
-discussed with max fac
-for conservative management” (Ex A 520)

The CT of the brain and cervical spine reported (CB.524 – 525):

“There is a minimally displaced fracture at the medial orbital wall on the right, which does not appear acute.”

There is no evidence that the fracture of the medial orbital wall was of recent onset or that it occurred during the bathroom incident. It was not acute. There is no evidence of facial structures. The evidence does not support a finding of any head injury in the incident in the bathroom.
The plaintiff cast the medical reports in their most favourable light.

The plaintiff’s submissions

According to the plaintiff, there is no evidence to support the proposition expressed by Dr Courtenay that the plaintiff struck his face. The evidence is that the plaintiff was suffering from neck and left shoulder pain and headaches from the time of the incident of on the cruise ship. There is no evidence of any facial fractures or an eye injury. Also, there is no evidence of cervical pain at C7.
The unchallenged evidence of Ms Burgess is that when the plaintiff returned from the cruise, he told her about the incident on the cruise ship and that he hurt his neck and left shoulder. The observations of Ms Burgess are mirrored by the evidence of his three daughters and by Mr Howes and Mr Owens. There is no submission by the defendant that any of these witnesses are untruthful or unreliable. However, their evidence gets to what the plaintiff told them. I again interpose here, I place little weight on this evidence as they are very general statements of little probative value and do not reflect the opinions of the medical experts and his version of events given to them, although inconsistent.
The most probable explanation for the onset of neck symptoms is explained by Dr Peter Moran, orthopaedic surgeon in his report (CB.69) and oral evidence (T250.5-11 and T251.15-25) and by Dr Blombery, consultant physician in pain medicine in his report (CB.75-76) and in his oral evidence (T276.40-45, T277.30-40). They opine that it is an aggravation of pre-existing but asymptomatic degenerative changes in the cervical spine caused by the jarring effect of the sudden, unexpected vertical drop onto the tiled surface when the step collapsed.
Both Drs Moran and Courtenay also accept that, at the time of the incident on the cruise ship, the plaintiff had asymptomatic degenerative changes in his cervical spine (T259.43-50). Dr Moran opines that asymptomatic degenerative symptoms can be aggravated and become painful. Dr Moran (T252.0-10) opined that there is no other likely explanation for the onset of the pain, so close to the incident, in the circumstances, other than the drop triggering the onset of symptoms.
However, Dr Courtenay does not accept an aggravation in this instance, but he does not provide any rational explanation for the onset of symptoms following the sudden unexpected vertical drop onto the tiled surface.
Dr Dalton accepted after viewing the CCTV, that it is conceivable there was a jarring and aggravation of the pre-existing degenerative changes, but he would have expected this to resolve within days or weeks (CB.225, T277.20-25, and 45). The plaintiff’s pain however did not resolve within days or weeks.
The headaches are a common consequence of neck injury and there is no probable cause for the onset other than the neck injury (CB.514).
As already stated, the plaintiff complained that his left shoulder was hurting to Ms Graham (CB.495), his GP, when consulting him on 4 December 2017 (CB.595) and when the plaintiff attended the hospital on 9 December 2017, it is recorded that he reported pain in his neck and left shoulder (CB.507).
The only prior incident involving the left shoulder was 33 years before the incident on the ship when the plaintiff was knocked to the ground by a falling freezer door (CB.431). The plaintiff was off work for about 3-4 months before returning to work full time and without any further complaints about the left shoulder until the incident on the ship. This has not been challenged nor contradicted.
An MRI dated 8 May 2018 revealed subscapular tendinopathy likely associated with mild adhesive capsulitis (CB.738).
The GP referred the plaintiff to Dr Richard Large, orthopaedic surgeon and upper limb specialist. The plaintiff saw Dr Large on 20 June 2018 who considered that the plaintiff likely injured his left shoulder on the cruise ship. Examinations in December 2018 and January 2019 confirmed the evolution of a subsequent frozen left shoulder. The report of Dr Large was received into evidence without objection (CB.601). The plaintiff has since undergone surgery to his left shoulder at the recommendation of Dr Large. The surgery in March 2021 has not relieved the symptoms of pain. The surgery was delaye because of delays in the public hospital system. I again interpose, this submission does not fully record the opinion of Dr Large. I again interpose, this submission does not fully record the opinion of Dr Large.
The opinion of Dr Dalton is conditioned by his interpretation of what he viewed on the CCT particularly after what he describes as a stumble and says the plaintiff:

“…appears to prance around on his feet in a jocular manner moving both arms freely. At no time does he appear to be in pain and the mechanism of injury is such that I would consider this a jarring incident…”

As I observed it, from the CCTV plaintiff “sort of hobbled” (T39.5). I accept that the plaintiff denied that he appeared to be doing a jog or dance (T39.50).

Dr Dalton never physically examined the plaintiff. The views expressed by him were based on medical reports provided to him as well as the CCTV footage of the plaintiff.
However, Dr Dalton accepted that it is plausible the adhesive capsulitis was developed or was aggravated because of the incident on the cruise ship.
He believed that the incident in the toilet cubicle on 21 December 2017 may have caused the shoulder injury (CB.226), but Dr Blombery disagreed pointing out that the incident on the toilet had nothing to do with the left shoulder.
Professor Lorraine Dennerstein, psychiatrist, has assessed the plaintiff twice. She has diagnosed the plaintiff with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. She noted that a not insignificant contributing factor to his diagnosis has been the plaintiff’s pain, limitation of functioning, loss of work, diminished capacity for social activities, loss of recreational pursuits and breakdown in his relationship with his partner Michelle Burges (T218.5-20, T228.20, T229.0-5). Prof Dennerstein noted the second time she assessed the plaintiff in December 2021, his depression was more sustained (T219.15-20).
In her oral evidence, Ms Burges, the plaintiff’s partner explained the changes in the plaintiff following the incident (T187-188). Similar evidence was given by the plaintiff’s daughters and his friends Mark Howes and Mark Owen. The plaintiff’s stress relating to the unfortunate flooding of his family home some months prior to the stressors following the incident on the ship, was also, in Prof Dennerstein’s opinion, a material contributor to the onset of the diagnosed psychological disorder.
The unchallenged evidence from family and friends is that the plaintiff was psychologically well before the incident of the ship.
The reason Prof Dennerstein should be preferred to Dr Samuell is three-fold:

First, Dr Samuell does not give sufficient weight to the real psychological impact of the stressors referred to and relied upon by Prof Dennerstein following the incident on the ship.

Secondly, to prefer Dr Samuell, the court would need to reject the unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence of family and friends as to the plaintiff’s difference in psychological state pre and post incident on the cruise.

Thirdly, Dr Samuell does not properly consider whether the stressors arising from the incident on the ship were a necessary condition of the materialisation of the psychological illness as required by s 5D(1) Civil Liability Act 2002 see Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] HCA 5 at 20 and also see Zanner v Zanner [2010] NSWCA 343 at [11].

The plaintiff has proved that as a consequence of the matters referred to by Associate Prof Dennerstein, that he has a recognised psychiatric illness.
While it is the plaintiff’s case and Prof Dennerstein’s opinion, that he has suffered a recognised psychiatric illness. Even if the court is not satisfied that he has suffered consequential mental harm as defined in s 27 CLA and this is recoverable as a component of his award for non-economic loss. The requirement for a recognised psychiatric illness under s 31 Civil liability Act 2002 only applies to pure mental illness, and not a consequential condition of mental harm.
As it turns out, I have made a finding below that the plaintiff did not suffer mental harm that was caused by or exacerbated by the cruise incident. That means that mental harm does not form a consequential condition, so this component is not reflected in the award of his non-economic loss.

The defendant’s submissions

The defendant submitted that causation is not made out factually or medically because:

On the balance of probabilities, it is more likely that a subsequent bathroom incident on 21 December 2017, in which the plaintiff collapsed and struck his head on a toilet bowl, colliding with the toilet bowl with enough force for the impact to have “smashed the toilet” was the cause of the plaintiff’s cervical spine and his left shoulder injury.

The bathroom fall is not legally or medically causally related to the incident.

To the extent the plaintiff’s expert evidence supports a causal link between the bathroom incident and the plaintiff’s alleged injuries and disabilities notwithstanding the bathroom fall, it is contaminated by:

An inaccurate medical history provided the plaintiff;

An inaccurate factual account of the incident provided by the plaintiff (which is objectively inaccurate when compared to the CCTV); and

Failure to disclose, or fully disclose, the bathroom fall, to allow an accurate causal analysis.

The defendant submitted that on a common-sense analysis, causation is not made out. The cruise ship incident that the plaintiff claims to have resulted in his injuries and subsequent pain only involved a small drop of approximately 30cm. Following the cruise incident, the plaintiff only made mild complaints to the cruise ships doctor. This is in stark contrast to the amount of physical force of the subsequent bathroom fall, which happened with enough power to smash a porcelain toilet bowl and probably fracture the plaintiff’s right orbital.

Orthopaedic Surgeons’ Reports

The plaintiff relied upon the report of Dr Peter Moran, Orthopaedic surgeon, dated 18 November 2021. The defendant relied on the report of Dr Brett Courtenay, Orthopaedic Surgeon, dated 4 July 2022. They both provided a joint report dated 20 March 2023 and gave concurrent evidence.
The expert orthopaedic surgeons gave different conclusions, as to the injuries that were caused by the incident.
On 18 November 2021 Dr Moran conducted an examination of the plaintiff and reviewed a section of the contemporaneous medical records. He is of the opinion that the plaintiff has limited mobility through his left shoulder and neck.
The orthopaedic surgeon identified a congenital abnormality of the shoulder referred to as ‘Sprengel’s shoulder’ and stiffness in the region (CB 67). In Dr Moran’s opinion, the plaintiff has developed “persistent neck and to a lesser extent upper back pain and left shoulder pain” (CB 68). Dr Moran also reports that there is evidence in the neck of a pre-existing age-related degenerative change that aligns with the plaintiffs age and occupational history (CB 68). He opined that the plaintiffs shoulder pain cannot be attributed to the presence of ‘Sprengel’s shoulder’ as the plaintiff has lived with this condition all his life with no prior issues or physical ailments related to it. Dr Moran believes that the shoulder pain is a result of a “post-traumatic phenomenon” (CB 68).
Finally, Dr Moran says that, the plaintiff’s symptoms are attributed to the cruise incident, as there is no history of neck and shoulder pain prior to the pool incident. Dr Moran believes that the plaintiff could benefit from treatment such as hydrodilatation and intensive physiotherapy or in a rare case arthroscopic surgery. He is of the view that the plaintiff’s capacity for work has been severely diminished as well as his ability to enjoy physically demanding recreational, social, and domestic activities (CB 69).
On 21 June 2022 Dr Courtenay interviewed and examined the plaintiff. Dr Courtenay observed that the plaintiff during the formal part of the examination displayed significant restrictions of movement, however in the informal part of the interview showed no signs of noticeable restrictions or pain. He describes the plaintiff as “freely moving his neck from left to right without any obvious signs of impairment” (CB 207). Dr Courtenay also observed the plaintiff’s “soft callosities” (CB 208) over his left and right hands, which indicates that Mr Langdon had been using his hands for physical work a lot more than he was claiming to do so (CB 208).
Dr Courtenay commented on the inconsistencies of the plaintiff’s numerous accounts of his incident, given in several contemporaneous medical reports to those shown on the CCTV footage. He pointed out that the distance Mr Langdon ‘fell’ was much smaller than reported by the plaintiff, and he observed there was no head trauma and no actual fall on the ground.
Dr Courtenay is of the opinion that in the absence of any head trauma related to the incident of the 19 November 2017 and no evidence of significant cervical jarring, there was no association with the original incident on the ship and the blackout event that occurred subsequently on the 9 December 2017.
However, Dr Courtenay states the blackout episode that involved the plaintiff collapsing in a bathroom stall and losing consciousness for a period during a Christmas party, is the cause of his cervical spine issues. This fall may have also caused an orbital fracture to the plaintiff, as he struck and broke the toilet bowl when passing out. His blood alcohol level was 0.133 when tested at the hospital. The plaintiff himself reported drinking approximately 8 beers on that day. After the fall the plaintiff was subjected to extensive medical investigation, but no cerebrovascular conditions were found to account for the episode.
Dr Courtenay stated, “I find it difficult to correlate why he should have taken 6 months for him to start getting significant problems with his left shoulder if it was related to that episode on the cruise ship” (CB 209).
Finally, Dr Courtenay concludes that he does not believe that injuries are consistent with what was viewed on the CCTV footage, he describes the incident on the cruise ship as a “minor episode’ (CB 210). He does not think that it would be a contributing factor to his ongoing issues of pain relating to his neck and left shoulder. On the contrary, Dr Courtenay believes that the subsequent event where the plaintiff lost consciousness and broke his orbital during the Christmas party was the cause of the plaintiff’s cervical spine issues.

Joint report of orthopaedic surgeons

Drs Peter Moran and Brett Courtenay provided a joint report dated 20 March 2023. The joint report contained the following relevant opinions:
Dr Courtenay does not believe there was sufficient violence in the incident to cause the plaintiff to sustain the neck injury. Dr Moran disagrees as it his opinion that, on the basis of the plaintiff's age with some mild to moderate degenerative changes at a number of levels, it could have represented the possibility of a jarring incident to lead to later neck symptoms. [My emphasis].
Dr Moran's assessment is aggravation of underlying degenerative change. Dr Courtenay agrees that there was degenerative change, but he does not believe there was an aggravation of symptoms.
The experts agree that after the plaintiff had a blackout incident and, some time following that, the plaintiff relates the symptoms more to the left shoulder.
The plaintiff may have jarred his neck and later developed a frozen shoulder which is neck related. The plaintiff had incidents where he felt dizziness. They do not believe that these incidents were related to the incident on the cruise.
As the plaintiff’s time off work was predicated by dizziness and syncopal episodes, both experts do not believe there is any relationship between them and the incident on board the cruise. They also do not accept that the need for surgery in 2021 has anything to do with the incident onboard ship in 2017.
The orthopaedic surgeons differ on the plaintiff’s future working capacity. Dr Courtenay is of the view that the plaintiff can engage in gainful employment whereas Dr Moran is of the opinion that the plaintiff can only do light physical work.

Orthopaedic surgeons’ concurrent evidence

During concurrent evidence in conclave, Dr Moran initially confirmed his opinion that the plaintiff’s symptoms are attributable to the incident on the cruise. He based this on a lack of symptoms pertaining to his neck or left shoulder prior to this incident (T3.250.8 – 13).
Dr Courtenay believed that the incident identified on CCTV footage was not of sufficient violence to cause the initial asymptomatic conditions to become painful.
Dr Moran notes that the incident is an unguarded, sudden change in direction. Specifically, Dr Moran states that:

“I agree with Mr Courtenay that you do not see any significant rapid movement of his head to indicate a severe jarring incident. But we are talking about unguarded movements where the spine is particularly vulnerable where you don’t brace yourself something that is really an everyday action and in that unbraced and unprotected situation I do believe from my professional and personal experience that you can actually suffer a jarring incident to the spine and in this case the neck” (T 251. 15).

Dr Courtenay provided the view that there may have been some transitive muscular issues from the incident on the cruise, but the incident at the Christmas party where the plaintiff experienced a “far more dramatic” (T.265. 5) fall, according to Dr Courtenay was the real cause of the plaintiff’s ongoing structural issues of his neck and shoulder (T.265.5).
With respect to the competing possible causes of the plaintiff’s complaints of injury, Dr Moran opines that:

“I think that - that all of these things come to the summation of forces. The fact is that that would appear - if you - in the way you describe it to be a more significant force on his body than the incident in the pool. I would agree with that.”

Further, the basis upon which Dr Moran disputes the likelihood of the plaintiff’s complaints being muscular lack sufficient precision. When he stated, “you do not get pain in the neck from muscle issues” (T.265.13).
Dr Moran concedes that in the question of a causal link between the incident on the cruise and the plaintiff’s pain, one would have to factor in the fall on the 21 December as a “summation of forces” (T.255.15).
Dr Courtenay has consistently held the opinion that the incident on the cruise did not warrant sufficient ‘violence’ to cause long term structural damage to the plaintiff. However, both doctors agree that the bathroom incident on 21 December 2017 did warrant sufficient ‘violence’ to cause long term issues to the plaintiff’s neck and shoulder.

The physicians’ evidence

The plaintiff relied upon the reports of Dr Peter Blombery, Vascular and Pain Physician, dated 27 November 2021 and 23 October 2022 and the report of Prof Peter Teddy, neurologist, dated 9 November 2021. The defendant relied on the report of Dr Seamus Dalton, Consultant Physician in Rehabilitation Medicine, dated 16 May 2022 that of Dr Richard Large, the plaintiff’s treating Orthopaedic consultant, dated 11 October 2019. The latter report was not favourable to the plaintiff. Dr Large recorded that the plaintiff:

“Is certainly fixated on the litigation and blaming fall on the cruise ship for all his ailments. I did try to explain to him that arthritis in his cervical spine and lumbar spine may not be attributable to a fall down some stairs. The pain in his cervical spine has forced him to blackout again. He has recently been admitted to Frankston Hospital with left shoulder pain. As far as I am aware, he is the only patient with frozen shoulder who has been admitted to Frankston Hospital for investigation acutely.”

It is Dr Blombery’s opinion that the incident on the cruise did not have anything to do with the plaintiff’s episodes with loss of consciousness.
Professor Teddy conducted an interview of the plaintiff via teleconference so was unable to conduct a full examination. Prof Teddy was cautious of linking the incident on the cruise to the plaintiff’s current injuries and pain. He believes that the plaintiff could have aggravated a form of “modest cervical spondylosis” (CB. 90), but he describes it as “possible but uncertain” (CB.90).
Prof Teddy does not believe the plaintiff’s ‘blackouts’ have a link to the incident on the cruise, stating that “no satisfactory explanation has been found for the reported blackouts” (CB.89). Finally, Professor Teddy recorded that the plaintiff reported to him that: “He had only ever seen two doctors in his life. He was as fit as a fiddle.”
Dr Dalton provided a report dated 16 May 2022, after reviewing the CCTV footage and contemporaneous medical records. Dr Dalton does not consider it likely that the plaintiff sustained an injury to his cervical spine rather it is more likely that he suffered a muscular strain of his neck and trapezius muscles based on the CCTV footage and the medical records.
Dr Dalton accepts that a jarring incident such as this may have caused a minor aggravation of any underlying degenerative changes, but based on his extensive clinical expertise, he considers that such an aggravation would resolve itself with or without treatment (CB 217).

Joint report of Drs Peter Blombery and Seamus Dalton 23 March 2023

As Prof. Teddy is a neurologist, he did not participate in the joint report.
In the joint report the expert physicians Dr Blombery and Dalton expressed the following opinions:
Both experts agree that the plaintiff had some form of mild pre-existing pathology in his cervical spine. Both physicians agree that after witnessing the CCTV footage that the incident was unlikely to have aggravated any pre-existing conditions suffered by the plaintiff.
The experts disagree on the plaintiff’s need for future medical care and treatment, subject to their reports on the condition of the plaintiff and his current injuries.
Dr Blombery believes that an injury occurred in the cruise incident was caused by the jarring of the fall, possibly aggravating pre-existing degenerative changes to the cervical spine.
Dr Dalton after watching the CCTV footage considers it more likely that the plaintiff suffered from some form of muscular strain. Dr Dalton does not believe that the plaintiff has suffered any residual disabilities as a result of the incident aboard the cruise.
Regarding the left shoulder injury, Dr Blombery’s opinion is that the plaintiff sustained a minor injury to the left shoulder which resolved after a few weeks. Dr Dalton believes that there is no evidence to support that an injury occurred to the plaintiff’s left shoulder as a result of the incident aboard the ship. He bases his opinion on the CCTV footage and the contemporaneous medical reports. Dr Dalton further debunks the notion of the plaintiff developing pain due to the development of adhesive capsulitis or from aggravation of the plaintiff’s pre-existing Sprengel deformity.
These experts disagree as to whether the plaintiff has continuing injuries as a result of the incident. Dr Blombery believes that the plaintiff will continue to experience pain in the affected areas, effectively developing chronic pain syndrome. Dr Dalton disagrees and believes that the plaintiff experienced what can be described as soft tissue injury with mild if any aggravation of any underlying condition that may be attributed to the cruise. Dr Dalton believes that any residual pain or injuries have been caused by subsequent falls and other factors that are not related to the one on the cruise.
The physicians disagree on the plaintiff’s need for a future medical care and treatment, subject to their reports on the condition of the plaintiff and his current injuries.

Concurrent evidence of Drs Dalton and Blombery

When giving concurrent evidence, the doctors both accepted that the incident on the cruise happened around 3.30pm on 19 November 2019. Both of them had viewed the CCTV footage. They both agreed that the plaintiff did not fall onto his left shoulder. Both orthopaedic surgeons agreed that the plaintiff’s congenital deformity of ‘Sprengel’s shoulder’ has no link to the incident on the cruise and is highly unlikely the source of the left shoulder and neck pain.
As previously stated, Dr Blombery opined that the fall may have had a jarring effect triggering pain by aggravating a pre-existing but asymptomatic degenerative change in the plaintiff’s cervical spine.

The defendant’s submissions
Considering the opinions of Drs Courtenay and Dalton, the defendant submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to damages for future out-of-pocket expenses as any pain or restriction of movement that developed as a result of the incident resolved within days to weeks of the cruise incident.

Resolution

On the assumption that the plaintiff suffered neck and left shoulder injuries and they were caused by the cruise incident, I would allow the sum of $33,680.56 for future out-of-pocket expenses.

Past economic loss

The plaintiff’s submissions
The plaintiff has provided various medical certificates, provided by his general practitioner, and summarised below (CB.751-772):

28 November 2017 to 22 January 2018 due to neck injury (unfit)
23 January 2018 to 28 February 2018 (unfit)
19 February 2018 to 6 March 2018 (fit for light duties but not operating machinery)
6 March 2018 to 2 April 2018 (fit for light duties only)
7 September 2018 to 6 October 2018 (light duties)
8 October 2018 to 4 November 2018 (light duties)
4 November 2018 to 4 February 2019 (light duties)
29 April 2019 to 4 May 2019 (unfit)
6 May 2019 to 3 June 2019 (light duties)
3 June 2019 to 16 June 2019 (unfit)
17 June 2019 to 15 July 2019 (light duties)
29 July 2019 to 26 August 2019 (light duties)
16 September 2019 to 30 September 2019 (unfit)
14 October 2019 to 28 February 2020 (light duties)
11 January 2020 to 31 December (light duties)
1 January 2021 to 30 April (light duties)
25 May 2021 to 24 August 2021 (Centrelink incapacity certificate)
25 August 2021 to 23 November 2021 (Centrelink incapacity certificate)
23 November 2021 to 22 February 2022 (Centrelink incapacity certificate)
23 February 2022 to 22 May 2022 (Centrelink incapacity certificate)
11 July 2022 to 11 October 2022 (Centrelink incapacity certificate)

The plaintiff’s unchallenged evidence is that since the fall on the ship he has returned as best he could to some light suitable duties with days off work from time to time. This evidence has not been challenged by the defendant. It is admirable that the plaintiff has done his best to return to work and undertake roles and tasks that he could best do following his injury. He has not however been able to return to full, pre-injury duties and earning capacity.
The plaintiff’s evidence is that at or about June 2021, he first started to receive Centrelink benefits (CB.438, 221). The payment summary for the financial year ending 2021 indicates that he first received Centrelink benefits on or about 14 May 2021 (CB.878).
Since about June 2022, the plaintiff has been in receipt of a disability support pension. The certificates for that benefit have been provided by his general practitioner, Dr Jenkins, who was of the opinion that the plaintiff has been completely unfit for work since May 2021 for reasons of both his neck and shoulder condition (CB.768-70, 772). Both these conditions together and separately have rendered the plaintiff completely unfit for work.
The Court must be cautious to accept the expert’s conclave evidence where it conflicts with the general practitioner with whom the plaintiff attends regularly and sees his daily struggles, regarding capacity for employment both in the past and into the future, in comparison to the experts who have seen him only once or twice and some years earlier. Noting within the orthopaedic conclave:

“That both experts agree that the plaintiff is able to work in part-time employment with restrictions as outlined above; for example, lifting restricted to 10 kilograms with one hand and 20 kilos with both hands” (CB.399).

These opinions must be considered in circumstance where Dr Courtenay assessed the plaintiff on 16 June 2022 and Dr Moran on 29 September 2021. Neither expert has considered what alternative part time role the plaintiff may be capable of undertake nor whether he would be qualified to obtain such a role.
This was emphasised by Dr Moran (CB.399 – A8):

“Dr Moran states that the plaintiff could do light physical work.
Dr Moran agrees with Dr Courtenay as to the lifting restrictions placed on the plaintiff.
Dr Moran states that, given the plaintiff has not worked for four and a half years, it would be beyond reasonable expectation for him to go back to full-time employment.
Dr Moran states that the plaintiff would be capable of doing 20 to 30 hours of work a week initially, but that would depend on the plaintiff being able to satisfy the work health and safety officers of his ability to drive earth moving machinery without the risk of further fitting.
Dr Moran notes that would be based on neurological advice.
Both experts agree that the plaintiff’s ability to drive plant and equipment is very limited, but that he could work in a supervisory role in the industries that he is familiar with:

Dr Blombery was of a similar view (CB.77):

“…yes, it will and his capacity will be partial for the long term in the future.”

Dr Moran was of the opinion (CB.69);

“Mr. Langdon’s capacity for work has been compromised by the accident, and his resultant issues, in that he is now intolerant of vigorous activities with his left arm and is intolerant of any jarring or compressive stresses on his neck and back as a consequence of his symptomatology. Add to this, he has clear evidence of a heightened level of anxiety, and I suspect depression. This should be assessed by a psychologist or psychiatrist, familiar with the appropriate guides. I would expect that Mr Langdon will find it extremely difficult to return to full-time employment in the area that he is deemed to be experienced and indeed expert.”

Dr Teddy was of the opinion (CB.90);

“Once again, one has to look separately at both shoulder and neck injuries. It seems likely that Mr Langdon’s work capacity will be compromised for the foreseeable future. He did return to work on a part-time basis through to March 2021. It seems unlikely that he would return to working in his former capacity or in any capacity”

There has been no contradiction to this contemporaneous evidence from the plaintiff’s general practitioner that the plaintiff has a loss of earning capacity and the Court ought to accept the proposition of the plaintiff’s regular treating practitioner who has reviewed and continues to review his capacity for work and has found that he is currently incapacitated.
That position is assisted by the plaintiff’s treating Neurosurgeon Dr Gnomes who provided the following opinion (CB.664):

“I reviewed Peter today in my rooms. As you know, I recently asked him to see Dr Palit a rehabilitation physician. Peter as before has ongoing symptoms of headache as well as pain and weakness in the arms and hands. I agree with Dr Palit’s assessment that given his current systems Peter is unlikely to be able to return to his former occupation. I believe he is also seeing Richard Stark, a neurologist in 1 to 2 weeks’ time.”

Dr Palit – consultant rehabilitation physician states (CB.656):

“He has previously been employed as a heavy machinery excavator driver, which will undoubtedly flare up his pain and as this has not settled after two years is not likely to be able to go back to this activity, If his headaches are manageable there may be some other opportunities for him with a less rigorous work, but I think in the first instance it would be worth getting all of this clarified.”

The authorities make it clear that damages for economic loss, past and present, are awarded for impairment to earning capacity when the impairment is productive of financial loss: Graham v Baker (1961) CLR 340; Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1.
There are three questions to be answered in assessing the loss of income earning capacity:

What was the plaintiff’s earning capacity at the time of injury?

To what extent was it impaired by the injury?

To what extent was the impairment productive of income loss?

McColl JA and Hall J provided a useful summary of the applicable principles in Kallouf v Middis [2008] NSWCA 61 at [44]-[61]:

Damages for past and future loss of income are allowed because diminution of earning capacity is or may be productive of financial loss: [1961] HCA 48; (1961) 106 CLR 340 (at 347) per Dixon CJ, Kitto and Taylor JJ. An alternative way of expressing the principle is that the plaintiff is compensated for the effect of an incident on the plaintiff’s ability to earn income: Medlin v The State Government Insurance Commission [1995] HCA 5; (1995) 182 CLR 1 per McHugh J at 16.

Although the exercise involves assessment of lost earning capacity and not loss of earnings, evidence of wage rates, known for the past and likely in the future, provides a basis for assessment.

Both the lost capacity and the economic consequences of that loss must be identified before it will be possible to assess the sum that will restore the plaintiff to his or her position but for the injury.

What was earned in the past may be a useful guide to what might be earned in the future, but it does not always provide certain guidance.

Assessment of future income loss necessarily involves the consideration of future possibilities or hypothetical events. The exercise is imprecise and carried out within broad parameters.

Evaluation of the extent to which a plaintiff may in future lose time from work and of the proper compensation to be allowed depends on the evidence.

An error of principle would be involved in concluding, in the absence of evidence, as a matter of certainty that a plaintiff will suffer future income loss.

The onus is on the plaintiff to provide evidence in support of the claimed diminution in earning capacity. Past income is relevant to this consideration but is not always determinative.

The onus is on the defendant who contends that the plaintiff has a residual earning capacity to provide evidence of the extent of that capacity and of the availability of employment.

In both cases, the evidence must establish more than a mere suggestion of loss or capacity.

Where it is clear that income-earning capacity has been reduced but its extent is difficult to assess, the absence of precise evidence will not necessarily result in non-recovery of damages. The task is to consider a range of what may be possibilities only that a particular outcome might be achieved to arrive at an award that is fair and reasonable.

The tax returns do not reflect the full amount of the plaintiff’s pre-incident capacity to earn because they do not reflect any unrecovered bad debts.
The task of assessment of future loss in circumstances where there is only limited evidence of loss to date was clarified in State of NSW v Moss (2002) 54 NSWLR 536 where the plaintiff’s injuries clearly pointed to an effect on his capacity to earn and there was therefore evidence of impaired earning capacity. Heydon JA said it was wrong to conclude that damages to compensate for this loss should be minimal. His Honour referred at [69] to authorities that his Honour said contained two uncontroversial themes. Firstly, in general, it was desirable for proceed evidence to be called of pre-injury and the likely post-injury outcome. But importantly, the absence of that evidence will not necessarily result in an award of no or nominal damages for impaired earning capacity. His Honour’s summary at [87] was:

“In short, where earning capacity has unquestionably been reduced but its extent is difficult to assess, even though no precise evidence of relevant earning rates is tendered, it is not open to the court to abandon the task and the want of evidence does not necessarily result in non-recovery of damages. Statements to the contrary such as those made in Allan v Loadsman[1975] 2 NSWLR 789 at 792 are not correct: Baird v Roberts[1977] 2 NSWLR 389 at 397–398, per Mahoney JA; J K Kealley v Jones at 732–735, per Moffitt P; Yammine v Kalway at 154–155 and 156–157, per Reynolds JA and Mahoney JA; Thiess Properties Pty Ltd v Page(1980) 31 ALR 430; see also Radakovic v R G Cram & Sons Pty Ltd[1975] 2 NSWLR 751 at 761, where Samuels JA criticised the “meagre facts” provided but did not say it was not open to the jury to find a substantial sum for diminished earning capacity by the “application of their own knowledge and experience”. The task of the trier of fact is to form a discretionary judgment by reference to not wholly determinate criteria within fairly wide parameters. Though the trier of fact in arriving at the discretionary judgment must achieve satisfaction that a fair award is being made, since what is involved is not the finding of historical facts on a balance of probabilities, but the assessment of the value of a chance, it is appropriate to take into account a range of possible outcomes even though the likelihood of any particular outcome being achieved may be no more than a real possibility. The trial judge in substance explained these aspects of the jury's task satisfactorily.”

The assessment of the plaintiff’s loses is complicated in this matter as he was self-employed. His evidence included various down turns in primary production income, some poor record keeping and bad debts. In those circumstances, the court is required to do its best on the material available to measure the loss that is due to the injury: Ryan v AF Concrete Pumping Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 113 at [211] and New South Wales v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536 at [72].
The plaintiff says, when considering pre-incident earning income, he was earning approximately $120,000 per annum (CB.435).
The plaintiff makes a claim for past economic loss of on average $50 per week since the date of the incident, until 1 July 2021, which then reverts to $1000 per week from 1 July 2021 to date. The plaintiff has selected 1 July 2021, for simple ease of calculation, noting that he has not worked from March 2021, and was in receipt of Centrelink benefits of some kind since May 2021.
The plaintiff’s statement of particulars summarises his pre-incident business and personal taxation before the incident. This is the starting point for analysis of the plaintiff incident earnings. It is noted that the taxation records, however, only record the total monies received by the plaintiff, not the extent of his earning capacity.
A summary over the 6-year period 2012-2017 is as follows:

The plaintiff received a total income of $1,1075,679.00, which averages out at $169,279.83 per year, $3255.38 per week.

The total expenses including depreciation of $760,652 or $126,775.33 per year or $2437.99 per week.

Total expenses excluding depreciation, $628,410 or $104,735 per year of $2,014.13 per week

Total gross income (primary reduction less total expenses):

Including depreciation totalled an average of $42,504.50 per year or $817.39 per week

Excluding depreciation totalled an average of $64,544.83 or $1,241.25.

These figures represent the declared business income of the plaintiff and support the starting proposition that the plaintiff’s average net figure would be $1000 per week (after taxation).
However, it was the plaintiff’s unchallenged evidence that between 2010 to 2015 he was engaged in work with a Dr Effat Farag (CB.434). Dr Farag subsequently did not pay all the accounts owed to the plaintiff at a time which was working 12 hours a day 6 days per week. The degree of work the plaintiff was undertaking before the incident was not challenged by the defendant (CB.434).
Additionally, the further unchallenged evidence of the plaintiff (CB.435) is that in the years preceding the incident the plaintiff was owed the following monies which were not received, that is, they were bad debts. These are listed as follows and total $297,526:

Gattocorp P/L: $6,718.38

Southon Constructions $43,924.68

JSL Global P/L: $33,268.68

Collocot Street P/L: $53,649.30

138FF P/L: $83,722.95 and

Nine Dragons: $33,268.

The plaintiff’s declared income within the taxation returns does not reflect his actual capacity which needs to include these bad debts of $297,526 over the same 6-year period.
The analysis taking into account the unpaid amounts, on the same basis as above is follows:

Total primary production (including bad debts) being $1,313.205 ($1,015,679 + $297,526), or an average of $218,867.50 per year or $4,208.99 per week.

Total expenses would have remained the same.

Total gross income would have been, noting that both figures are before tax:

Including depreciation ($218,867.50 – $126,775.33) = $92,092.17 per year or $1,771 per week.

Excluding depreciation ($218,867.50 – $104,735.00) = $114,132.50 per year or $2,194.86 per week.

As demonstrated above these figures elevate the pre-tax earnings of the plaintiff to well above the previous tax levels. Doing the best he can to assist the court and allowing for changes in income over time, the plaintiff submitted that the best and considered position would have been an average earning capacity of $1,000 net per week.
From 27 November 2017 to 30 June 2021 (187 weeks) at $50 loss per week. $50 x 187 = $9,350. From 1 July 2021 to 27 March 2023 (90 weeks). $1000 x 90 weeks = $90,000. Total past loss = $99,350.

The defendant’s submissions

Upon returning to Victoria following the subject cruise, the plaintiff returned to work. The plaintiff alleges that he experienced pain in the neck and left shoulder while working.
In his amended statement of particulars, the plaintiff claims a nominal loss of income of $50 per week from 27 November 2017, being the first Monday following the plaintiff’s return from the subject cruise to 1 July 2021.
The defendant conceded that a nominal diminution of earning capacity of $50 per week is reasonable for the period over which the plaintiff’s injuries from the cruise incident persisted.
The plaintiff’s period of loss is from 27 November 2017 to 21 December 2017 when the bathroom fall occurred, totalling $200.

Resolution

There is photographic evidence showing the plaintiff undertaking physical work as a landscaper. In the past, he has only claimed $50 per week. The defendant accepts $50 per week, but only up until the time of the bathroom fall (4 weeks x $50 once again equates to $200). On the assumption that the injuries to the plaintiff’s left shoulder and neck were caused by the incident on the cruise, I would allow the sum of $99,350 for past-economic loss.

Future economic loss

The plaintiff’s submissions

The plaintiff’s unchallenged evidence is that he has been able to go back to work, earning a modest income but there have clearly been days in which he has been off work. The plaintiff says, when looking at his earning until May 2021, he has lost on average about $50 per week, quantified in the updated statement of particulars as follows:

27/11/2017 (First Monday following return to trip) to 30 June 2021 (187 weeks at $50 loss per week) = $50 x 187 weeks = $9,350.

From July 2021, the plaintiff makes a claim of $1,000 per week into the future:

From 1/7/2021 to 27/3/2023 (first date of trial) at $1,000 per week = $1,000 x 90 weeks = $90,000. Total past loss is $99,350.

It is noted that the defendant has submitted that the taxation returns have shown an increase in taxable income. This is correct however taxable income is not earning capacity. Within the 2020 financial year there was a significant increase where the total taxable income was $80,291 (CB.794). However, it is submitted that the figure is not indication of earnings. It included a SLS payment (superannuation lump sum) of $30,030 which is further evidence in the payment summaries (CB.878). A lump sum superannuation payment is not representative of earning capacity and the Court needs to be careful when relying solely on the notice of assessments and only taxable income regarding determination of loss of earning capacity.
It is the plaintiff’s unchallenged evidence that as of 2017, he was going to work for about the next 12 years (CB.436):

“In August 2017. I was advised that Sunnybank received a 6-year written contract with the City of Casey to undertake landscaping projects, maintenance of council assets, excavations, rubbish removal and any other job requests requested by the council. I had anticipated that this was going to be the bulk, if not entirety of my income over the next six years.

I had planned to do this work for the 6-year contract and then, likely for another 6 years with a contract extension. I had no plans for early retirement as I really enjoyed working.”

Mark Owns gave evidence about a continuing contract with the City of Casey.
In all likelihood, the plaintiff would have worked until the age of 67, if not longer. The defendant has not challenged this evidence.
The plaintiff says that, doing the best he can with respect to the calculations of $1,000 per week, the loss of his earning capacity calculated from 1 July 2021, for 5 years until he turns 70 is as follows:

$1,000 x 345.6 x 0.85 = $293,760.

The plaintiff also submitted that the Court, when considering all these aspects, may allow a buffer of $250,000 for future economic loss.

The defendant’s submissions

The defendant submitted that the plaintiff’s injuries and disabilities arising from the cruise incident resolved within weeks.
The defendant submitted that in the circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages for future economic loss.

Resolution

On the assumption that the plaintiff suffered injuries to his left shoulder in the cruise incident, I would allow $100,000 as a buffer. I have reduced the amount claimed by the plaintiff on the basis that he has the capacity to perform some physical work, as shown in photographs, and there is no persuasive evidence to demonstrate that the plaintiff would of, in fact, worked to 70 years of age. My view is that he most likely would have worked until the retirement age of 67.

Past care

The plaintiff’s submissions

The plaintiff has provided unchallenged evidence regarding the size and description of the Scott Road Property (CB.423):

“A semi-rural 5-bedroom property on 5 acres. It has three specific horse paddocks about 1-1.5 acres each. There are two horse yards which are about 5 x 5 metres to contain the horses when we are drenching them or vet, or blacksmith. There is also a stable to house the horses which is about 4 x 4 metres. The house itself is about 22 x 8 metres and is 2 stories. It has a full front veranda and a pergola out the back.
In the front of the house is a front yard of about 250 metres square of nice grass which I would previously mow very regularly. Around the house is a 1.5 acre fully landscaped native garden. Around the house paddock is a full chicken wire fence with a timber top railing of treated pine, together with a chook shed and a vegetable garden.
There is a very large Machinery which is about 12 x 15 meters out the back to the side. The shed houses most of my machines, my tractors, ride on mowers, boat and my Ute.
The property also has a lake and a dam.”

The plaintiff further provided unchallenged evidence regarding the timing of the outdoor activities (CB.424):

“103. I would estimate that before the accident I would spend about 2.4 hours per week doing the front lawns to the standard I liked. I would also spend about 1-1.5 hours using the whipper snipper around the fences and front yard. General garden maintenance such as weeding and planting would take me about 1.5 hours per week. I really loved being outdoors in the garden, so this was never a problem for me. I never had any problems or pain doing this work around the house.
104. Additionally, it would take me about 3 hours every couple of weeks to cut all the paddock and day yard grass. Whipper snipping around the paddock fences would be an extra 1.5 hours or so. It would be less in the winter months, but some time more in the summer ones. This needs to be done all on a regular basis as the local council had restrictions ensuring that the grass is no more than 150mm due to bush fire risks.
105. Every month or so I would go through the property seeing what fire protection was additionally needed. This would include spraying it in the uncleared bush or along the driveway, clearing any fallen trees, cleaning the cutting and moving any fire risks outdoors. You need to keep on top of this every month. Otherwise, it is too big of a task to prepare the property for the fire season. The gutters alone take about 45 minutes per month up a ladder. I don’t think I can do this now as I cannot move both my arms above my head and I feel unsteady on the ladder.”

The plaintiff provided evidence in cross-examination that he does some of the work around the house being the lawns – no more other than outdoor maintenance was put to him (T80.7-18):

Q. The lawns look immaculately kept Mr Langdon.
A. They are.
Q. And you do that, don’t you?
A. Yes. When I use the ride-on mower. I’m usually about 10 minutes a time, do a bit of mowing and then I’m off the mower again.
Q. It really is – the gardens are really beautiful at your place. That’s true, isn’t it?
A. I regard them, a lot of other people regard them as beautiful. I’m a little bit disappointed in myself in the way they are but yeah, I think something to be proud of, anyway.

The evidence in cross-examination that he can do some of the mowing must be considered together with the unchallenged evidence that he requires assistance (CB.427):

“The outside property is really very large. I rely heavily on my daughters to assistance with the gardening and maintaining my lawns and trees. I think that I would previously spend most of my weekends looking after the property and the horse yards.
Prior to the accident, I kept my lawns and trees throughout the property in immaculate condition but now they have become unkempt, and I am just unable to maintain it.
I try to do some weeding, prune some plants and rake grass on occasions. I can only do this for about 15 minutes before needing to sit down inside and take a break.
My friends Mark Owen, Mark Howes and Craig Howes make themselves available to me to assist in the cutting of fallen trees, firewood, branches around my property. Before the accident, I never had any problems doing this work.”

The evidence from his daughters, Jessica (CB.459-464), Emily (CB.466-472) and Caitlyn (CB.48-486), together with Mark Owens (CB.477) support the proposition that the plaintiff requires assistance with heavy aspects of work around the house in outdoor areas. Specifically, Emily provided the following evidence of at least 1-2 hours per sister per week – being a total of 6 hours of assistance being provided by the plaintiff’s daughters (T145.25-48, T155.11-38):

“Q. Have you observed your sisters, since your injury, carrying out any of the 25 outdoor property maintenance?
A. Yes, both of them.
Q. What have you observed them doing?
A. My little sister tends to ride on the lawn – the lawn mower, because she’s a little hoon
…
Q. Okay.
A. But my big sister as well helps with the gardening, we will do it together. That’s Jess.
Q. How much time do you think, to your observation, the girls generally, that’s including yourself, how many hours a week do they spend doing the property maintenance?
…
WITNESS: I would say that it would be – obviously it changes during the summer and winter, but it would be probably at least an hour or two a week, because we do it together a lot of the time?
Her Honour:
Q. Would you say that’s an average?
A. Yes. Some day – some days, it might be eight hours, and then we might not do it for a few weeks, so that - yes.
MCILWAINE
Q. So if you averaged it out, say a month –
A. Yes.
Q. – during the warmer months, cause you’ve pointed, there’s different things.
HER HONOUR: Well, that’s why I thought she was doing an overall average, over – including summer and winter.
Q. So if you –
A. Yeah, I was thinking overall, during summer and winter, it would be an hour tor two.
Q. An hour or two, you said, a week?
A. Well, yes.”

Regarding medical support, Dr Blomberry was of the opinion (CB.77): “That is the case as outlined above. He is having assistance at the moment from his daughters but if that were not available, he would require regular assistance up to five hours per week.”
Dr Moran was of the opinion (CB.69):

“His ability to participate and enjoy recreational, social and domestic activities has been adversely affected to a significant degree by the injury.
Similarly, his tolerance of household activities and domestic tasks have been impacted on by this injury.”

In the circumstances, noting that there is some variation in the degrees of assistance from time to time, including the period between when the plaintiff moved out of the large five-bedroom house into the granny flat, and the changing of the seasons, the court would be satisfied that the plaintiff required assistance in the past of no less than 9 hours per week at $33 per week being the average rates for attendant care.
As at the first day of the trial, this was 277 weeks.

=$33 x 9 x 277 weeks
=$82, 269.

The defendant’s submissions

The plaintiff makes a claim for past care on a gratuitous basis.
The plaintiff does not rely on any expert evidence in support of the proposition that the care provided is both reasonably necessary and causally related to the subject incident.
None of the lay witnesses called on behalf of the plaintiff identified a specific need for care and assistance that was provided in respect of the injuries sustained in the cruise incident, and those injuries sustained on 21 December 2017 in the bathroom incident.
There is evidence before the court that the plaintiff is no longer living in the primary residence on his property and now resides in a “granny flat” or “rumpus room” that is approximately 5m x 7m in size. It has no running water and no kitchen.
A significant impediment to the plaintiff undertaking his own cooking and laundry is that he does not have the facilities available to him in his current arrangements.
With respect to the restrictions that she has observed the plaintiff began to experience, the evidence of Ms Caitlyn Rose Langdon was as follows (T2.140.20-33):

“Q. Now, you were providing her Honour with some evidence about, you know, what you’ve observed since your father’s accident. Of course, you’ve also observed that, have you not, that he had an episode at the Gateway Shopping Centre. Did you know that?
A. No, not – I don’t believe so.
Q. Did you know that he had an accident, in 21 December in a toilet at the sports club?
A. Yes, at Amstel.
Q. And the observations that you’ve made about his restrictions, those observations are things you’ve noticed after at least two events as well, correct?
A. Yes.”

In oral evidence, the plaintiff’s daughter, Jessica Lee Langdon conceded that her evidence that the plaintiff is incapable of vacuuming for any more than 20-30 minutes at a time has not restricted the plaintiff because he is only required to vacuum a very small area, being the 5m x 7m granny flat.
The plaintiff’s evidence that is incapable of maintaining his property, albeit at a slower pace than previously, was accepted by Jessica Langdon, Caitlyn Landon and Emily Langdon.
Emily Langdon gave evidence of her estimate of the amount of time that she and her sisters spend per week in providing care and assistance to the plaintiff. Emily’s estimate was as follows (T2.154.45-T2.155.38):

“MCILWAINE
Q. How much time do you think, to your observation, the girls generally, that’s including yourself, how many hours a week do they spend doing property maintenance?
…
WITNESS: I would say that it would be – obviously it changes during summer and winter, but it would be probably at least an hour or two a week, because we do it together a lot of the tome.
HER HONOUR
Q. Would you say that’s average?
A. Yes. Some day – some days, it might be eight hours, and then we might not do it for a few weeks, so that – yes.
MCILWAINE
Q. So if you averaged it out, over say a month –
A. Yes.
Q. – during the warmer months, cause you’ve pointed out, there’s different things.
HER HONOUR: Well, that’s why I thought she was doing an overall average, over – including summer and winter.
Q. So if you –
A. Yeah, I was thinking overall, during summer and winter, it would be an hour or two.
Q. An hour to two, you said, a week?
A. Well, yes.”

Dr Dalton is of the opinion that the plaintiff’s injuries and disabilities arising from the cruise incident resolved within weeks of the Incident. However, in the event that the plaintiff establishes that he has developed a need for care as a result of the incident, Emily Langdon’s evidence demonstrates that the plaintiff’s care requirements do not meet the threshold for claiming damages for gratuitous care.
In these circumstances, the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to damages for past care.

Resolution

The photos of the property show that it is kept in immaculate condition and is stunning. Once again assuming the plaintiff’s injuries to his left shoulder and neck are caused by the cruise incident, he has still been able to do the mowing. While I would accept that the plaintiff cannot do tasks such as climbing a ladder and the hour or two a week that has been performed by friends and family members as gratuitous care, this does not amount to the threshold amount of 6 hours per week for 6 months required, namely, on this basis I would not allow any past domestic care.

Future care

The plaintiff’s submissions

The plaintiff largely adopts their submissions pertaining to past care for the purposes of future care.
The plaintiff submitted that the evidence provided is that of a loving and caring family, and there is no indication that the daughters will stop providing the assistance to their father. Once the property issue is resolved, it is likely that the plaintiff will move out of the small granny flat and would require assistance with internal housework as articulated by his daughters in their evidence.
The amount claimed in the statement of particulars for future assistance allows not just for vicissitudes of life in terms of future care, but also it is only claimed for the next 10 years. The claim has been made allowing for the age of the plaintiff and noting that he is unlikely to be able to maintain the property indefinitely:

=$34 x 9 x 412.9 x 0.85
=$107,395

The defendant’s submissions

The plaintiff makes a claim for future care on a gratuitous basis. The defendant submitted that on the basis of the evidence of Emily Langdon, the plaintiff does not meet the threshold for claiming damages for gratuitous care.
Further, Dr Dalton is of the opinion that the plaintiff’s injuries and disabilities arising from the incident resolved within weeks of the incident and as such, any current requirement for care is not causally related to the incident.
The plaintiff has not served any evidence from an expert that is appropriately qualified to express an opinion on the level of future care, if any, required by the plaintiff as a result of the incident.

Resolution

On this basis the plaintiff’s injuries to his left shoulder and neck were caused by the cruise incident and that at some stage he may require commercial care (not 10 years). I would allow $50,000.

Result

The plaintiff has failed to establish causation. Judgment is entered for the defendant.

Costs

Costs normally follow the event. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Judgment is entered for the defendant.
The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs.

**********

Decision last updated: 20 November 2023

Medium Neutral Citation:	Langdon v Carnival PLC t/as P&O Cruises Australia [2023] NSWSC 1406
Hearing dates:	27 March 2023 - 30 March 2023
Date of orders:	20 November 2023
Decision date:	20 November 2023
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Harrison AsJ
Decision:	(1) Judgment is entered for the defendant. (2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs.
Catchwords:	NEGLIGENCE - Causation – Duty of care – Personal injury – Breach – Civil Liability – Personal Injury – Cruise – Broken wooden step – Credibility – Neck injury – Shoulder injury – Psychological – Asymptomatic preconditions – Factual Causation – Balance of probabilities – But for test – Necessary condition – Scope of liability – Damages – Non- economic loss – Economic loss
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ss 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E and 16.
Cases Cited:	Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak [2009] HCA 48 Berkeley Challenge Pty Lyd v Howarth [2013] NSWCA 370 Clifton v Lewis [2012] NSWCA 229 Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320 State of New South Wales v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536 Graham v Baker (1961) CLR 340 Kallouf v Middis [2008] NSWCA 61 Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) CLR 638 Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1 Ryan v AF Concrete Pumping Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 113 State of NSW v Moss (2002) 54 NSWLR 536 Strong v Woolworths Limited (2012) 246 CLR182 HCA 5; 246 CLR 182; 86 ALJR 267; 285 ALR 420 Wallace v Kam (2013) HCA 19; 250 CLR 375; 87 ALJR 648; 297 ALR 383 Zanner v Zanner [2010] NSWCA 343
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Peter Langdon (Plaintiff) Carnival PLC t/as P&O Cruises (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr. R Mcllwaine SC & Ms N. Compton (Plaintiff). Mr C.P. O’Neill & Mr Algie (Defendant) Solicitors: Shine Layers (Plaintiff) Gilchrist Connell (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2020/327473