Manning v State of NSW - [2005] NSWSC 958

CITATION:
Manning v State of NSW [2005] NSWSC 958

HEARING DATE(S): 12/09/2005, 13/09/2005, 14/09/2005, 15/09/2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

28 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Hoeben J at 1

DECISION:
Assessment of damages to include non-economic loss, past and future gratuitous care services and the cost of future care. No damages awarded for past or future economic loss.

CATCHWORDS:
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES - Civil Liability Act - non-economic loss when injured party has limited appreciation of that which has been lost - extent and nature of gratuitous care services provided by family members - whether benefits received under Disability Services Act should be taken into account when assessing damages for future accommodation and care.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Civil Liability Act 2002
Disability Services Act 1993
Mental Health Act 1990
Motor Accidents Act 1988

CASES CITED:
"Assessment of Damages for Personal Injury and Death" Luntz 4th ed
Del Ponte v Del Ponte (1987) 11 NSWLR 498
Dell v Dalton (1991) 23 NSWLR 528
Geaghan v D'Aubert [2002] NSWCA 260
Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340
Griffith v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Haines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60 at 63
Hornsby Shire Council v King [2005] NSWCA 67
Juranovich v McMahon (1961) NSWR 190
K-Mart Australia v McCann [2004] NSWCA 283
Malec v JD Hutton (1990) 169 CLR 638
Manser v Spry (1994) 181 CLR 428
Marsland v Andjelic No 1 (1993) 31 NSWLR 162
National Insurance Company of New Zealand Limited v Espagne (1960-1961) 105 CLR 569
Nicholson v Nicholson (1994) 35 NSWLR 308
Paff v Speed (1961) 105 CLR 549
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
Redding v Lee (1983) 151 CLR 117
Skelton v Collins (1966) 115 CLR 94
Thatcher v Charles (1961) 104 CLR 57
The Nominal Defendant v Lane [2004] NSWCA 405
Treloar v Wickham (1961) 105 CLR 102
Willett v Futcher [2005] HCA 47

PARTIES:
Robert Gregory Manning by his tutor Christine Maynard v State of New South Wales

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 20337/03

COUNSEL:
D Nock SC/P Kirby - Plaintiff
JE Maconachie QC/P Sternberg - Defendant

SOLICITORS:
Greg Tyler & Associaties - Plaintiff
I V Knight, Crown Solicitor - Defendant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOEBEN J

Wednesday, 28 September, 2005

20337/03 – Robert Gregory MANNING by his tutor Christine MAYNARD v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 5 June 2002 the plaintiff was a prisoner in the custody and control of the Department of Corrective Services in the Cessnock Correctional Centre. The plaintiff’s imprisonment was due to a breach by him of an apprehended violence order taken out by his mother.

2 On 5 June 2002 the plaintiff was savagely beaten by another prisoner who had been placed in the cell with him. The plaintiff was twenty-nine. As a result of the attack the plaintiff suffered very serious injuries including brain damage.

3 The defendant has admitted breach of duty of care. The matter has come before the court for…

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 Manning v State of NSW 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: [2005] NSWSC 958
Decision Date: 28 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Manning v State of NSW, the dispute centred around the assessment of damages for non-economic loss, taking into account the limited appreciation of loss by the injured party and the nature and extent of care services provided by family members. The plaintiff, Manning, sought compensation for injuries sustained from a motor vehicle accident. The State of New South Wales was the defendant. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court involved determining how to assess damages for non-economic loss when the injured party has a limited understanding of what has been lost due to their injury. The court also had to consider whether the benefits received under the Disability Services Act should be taken into account when assessing damages for future accommodation and care. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the extent to which gratuitous care services provided by family members should be factored into the damages calculation.

The court found that, in assessing non-economic loss, the limited appreciation of loss by the injured party should be considered, as it affects the extent of the loss. The court held that while gratuitous care services provided by family members could be considered, they should not be given the same weight as paid services. Furthermore, the court ruled that benefits received under the Disability Services Act should be taken into account when calculating damages for future accommodation and care, as these benefits directly impact the plaintiff's needs and the associated costs.

The court ordered that the damages be assessed taking into account the limited appreciation of loss, the value of gratuitous care services, and the benefits received under the Disability Services Act. The exact amount of damages was to be determined at a later stage, pending further evidence and submissions.

Orders