Luck v Civil Mining and Construction Pty Ltd - [2009] QSC 413

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Luck v Civil Mining and Construction Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 413

PARTIES:

ALAN EDWARD LUCK

Plaintiff

v

CIVIL MINING AND CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD

Defendant

FILE NO/S:

s 630/2007

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

10 December 2009

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $123,273.29.

2. Direct the Registrar to forward to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and to the Acting Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink copies of the transcript of the plaintiff’s evidence and of these reasons for judgement.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – whether injury suffered significantly impacts upon the Plaintiff’s earning capacity given his pre-accident condition

COUNSEL:

R C Morton for the plaintiff

M Grant-Taylor SC for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Morton and Morton for the plaintiff

McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the defendant

The plaintiff, Mr Alan Edward Luck, claims damages for personal injuries suffered in the course of his employment with the defendant, Civil Mining and Construction Pty Ltd on 28 November 2005. Liability is admitted. I am required to assess damages.

Mr Luck was born on 1 October 1959. He was therefore 46 years of age when injured and is now 50 years.

The significant issue is whether the injury suffered in the subject incident had a significant impact on the plaintiff’s earning capacity given his pre-accident condition. That in turn depends on the resolution of two related issues:

(a) Should the plaintiff be accepted when he claims that he had no significant back pain between returning to work with Sheppard Earthmoving in 2002 and the subject incident in November 2005?

(b) Did the plaintiff have a capacity for heavy labouring work pre-accident such that, had the subject incident not occurred, he could have maintained such employment?

The Injury and its Aftermath

It is not in issue that on the 28 November 2005 Mr Luck lifted a 90 kilogram manhole cover and suffered pain in the mid to bottom section of his thoracic spine when he turned and twisted to place the manhole cover to one side. He had a short period off work, attempted to return to work, but was given heavy duties and decided to leave.[1] He was placed on the disability support pension on 9 February 2006.
[1]$2,332 earned in an approximate six week period over December 2005 –January 2006

He has not sought medical treatment. There has been no improvement in his back pain. He occasionally experiences tingling of the fingers and legs. He has difficulties with walking and sitting for too long and with lifting and bending.

In paragraph 4(e) of the statement of claim the plaintiff pleads that he suffered a traumatic exacerbation of lumbar spondylosis in the lifting of the manhole cover. The expert medical evidence however does not support any such injury. No point was taken on the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Luck v Civil Mining and Construction Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] QSC 413
Decision Date: 16 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luck brought an action against Civil Mining and Construction Pty Ltd for damages arising from personal injuries sustained in a workplace accident. The dispute centred on the measure and remoteness of damages for the personal injuries suffered by Luck, with a particular focus on how the injuries impacted his earning capacity considering his pre-accident condition. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the injuries Luck suffered significantly impacted his earning capacity and the appropriate measure of damages. The court had to consider the extent to which Luck's pre-existing condition, if any, influenced the assessment of damages. It was also necessary to determine the extent to which the accident contributed to Luck's injuries and the overall impact on his ability to work and earn income.

In determining the measure of damages, the court held that the injuries Luck suffered did have a significant impact on his earning capacity. The court found that the accident exacerbated Luck's pre-existing condition, leading to a substantial reduction in his ability to work. The court assessed the damages by considering the extent of the impairment, the nature of Luck's employment, and the reduction in his earning capacity. The court awarded Luck a total sum of $123,273.29 in damages, which included compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and economic loss. The court also directed that copies of the judgment and evidence be sent to relevant taxation and social security authorities.

The court's final orders were to enter judgment in favour of Luck in the sum of $123,273.29 and to direct the Registrar to forward copies of the judgment and evidence to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and the Acting Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $123,273.29.

2. Direct the Registrar to forward to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and to the Acting Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink copies of the transcript of the plaintiff’s evidence and of these reasons for judgement.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Luck v Civil Mining and Construction Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 413
PARTIES:	ALAN EDWARD LUCK Plaintiff v CIVIL MINING AND CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD Defendant
FILE NO/S:	s 630/2007
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	16 December 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	10 December 2009
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $123,273.29. 2. Direct the Registrar to forward to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and to the Acting Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink copies of the transcript of the plaintiff’s evidence and of these reasons for judgement.
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – whether injury suffered significantly impacts upon the Plaintiff’s earning capacity given his pre-accident condition
COUNSEL:	R C Morton for the plaintiff M Grant-Taylor SC for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Morton and Morton for the plaintiff McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the defendant