Lawson v Jones - [1993] QCA 451

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1993] QCA 451
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 118 of 1993

Brisbane

Before

The President
Mr Justice Davies
Mr Justice Lee

[Lawson v. Jones]

BEVERLEY CLAIR LAWSON

(Plaintiff) Respondent

ALAN PATRICK JONES

(Defendant) Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 09/11/1993

On 27 May 1992, the respondent was awarded $771,945 damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 14 October 1988 as a result of the appellant's negligence. She was 36 years of age at the time of the accident, having been born on 16 September 1952. The damages award included components for the respondent's past and future need for care of $70,000 and $250,000 respectively. The respondent's need for care was being satisfied at the time of trial by services gratuitously provided by the respondent's mother and sister.

On 13 November 1992 this Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the quantum of the award, reducing the past and future care components to $20,000 and $85,000 respectively. The respondent then appealed against this Court's decision to the High Court. On 5 March 1993, the High Court allowed the appeal, deciding that, this Court's attention not having been drawn to the High Court's recent decision in Van Gervan v. Fenton (1992) 66 ALJR 828, it had incorrectly proceeded on the basis that damages for past and future care should only be awarded to the extent that the respondent's need for care is or may be productive of financial loss. The appeal now comes before us having been remitted by the High Court to be heard and determined by this Court according to law.

Argument on the present occasion was restricted to the question of whether, in light of the principles enunciated in Van Gervan, this Court's earlier conclusion that the past and future care components of the award were excessive and should be reduced in the manner indicated, could be sustained.

In Van Gervan, a majority of the High Court held that the true basis of a Griffiths v. Kerkemeyer (1977) 134 C.L.R. 327 claim is the plaintiff's need for services provided for him or her, and it is therefore not necessary to demonstrate that this need is or may be productive of financial loss:

at 333, 347. As a general rule, the appropriate level of damages will be the market cost or value of the necessary services, rather than the income forgone by the provider of the services or the actual cost of the services to the plaintiff: at 331, 349.

Before us, counsel for the appellant accepted, in keeping with the decision in Van Gervan, that commercial rates were an appropriate basis for calculating the value of any necessary services in this case. There are therefore only two questions which this Court must determine: first, whether the learned trial judge applied the appropriate commercial rate in calculating the value of the necessary services; and secondly, whether the learned trial judge…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lawson v Jones

Details

AGLC: Lawson v Jones [1993] QCA 451
Case: [1993] QCA 451
Decision Date: 9/11/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Lawson and Jones. The dispute centred around the amount of damages awarded to the respondent, Jones, who had been injured in a motor vehicle accident. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issue that the court had to address was whether the award of damages for past and future care, which was largely provided by Jones's mother, was justified. This matter had been remitted by the High Court for determination in light of the case Van Gervan v Fenton.

The court's reasoning and outcome were grounded in the principles established by the High Court in Van Gervan v Fenton. The court had to consider whether the care provided by Jones's mother constituted 'valuable' care that warranted compensation. The court found that the care provided by Jones's mother was indeed valuable and that it was appropriate to compensate for this care. The court concluded that the award of damages for this care was justified and should be upheld. The court also noted that the amount of compensation should reflect the market rate for professional care services, adjusted for the personal relationship between the carer and the injured party.

The outcome of the case was that the appeal by Lawson was dismissed, and the original award of damages for past and future care, largely provided by Jones's mother, was upheld. The court's decision was based on the principles established in Van Gervan v Fenton and the recognition that the care provided by Jones's mother was valuable and warranted compensation. The final orders of the court were that the award of damages for past and future care, as determined by the lower court, was affirmed.

Orders