Marrell v TAC
[2019] VCC 1172
•2 August 2019
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE COMMON LAW DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CI-18-03687
| ROB MARRELL | Plaintiff |
| V | |
| TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE TSALAMANDRIS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 23 and 24 July 2019 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 2 August 2019 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Marrell v TAC | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1172 | |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
SubjectTRANSPORT ACCIDENT
Catchwords: Serious injury application – injury to left knee – causation
Legislation Cited: Transport Accident Act 1986
Cases Cited:Matika (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305
Judgment: Application successful
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr R McGarvie QC with Mr J Valiotis | Zaparas Lawyers |
| For the Defendant | Mr J Ruskin QC with Ms J Clark | Transport Accident Commission |
HER HONOUR:
Preliminary
1 Mr Marrell is a 54 year old man who was injured in a transport accident on 27 May 2015, when the car he was driving was struck from behind by a semi-trailer (“the transport accident”). Mr Marrell claims that he felt pain in his left knee immediately after this accident and that, the following day, he was unable to complete the physical aspects of a training course he was required to attend as part of his employment as an immigration detention officer. Mr Marrell was subsequently referred by his general practitioner for medical imaging and was diagnosed as having suffered a tear to his left medial meniscus. Soon thereafter Mr Marrell underwent an arthroscopy on his left knee, following which he underwent a partial knee replacement in June 2016.
2 In order for Mr Marrell to be entitled to claim common law damages, he must satisfy me that he suffered a left knee injury in this transport accident, and that the impairment of his left leg arising from that accident satisfies paragraph (a) of the definition of “serious injury” contained in s93(17) of the Transport Accident Act1986.
3 The TAC does not dispute that the consequences to Mr Marrell from his left knee impairment are serious, in that they can be described as at least very considerable. The TAC defended this claim solely on the basis that Mr Marrell did not injure his left knee in the transport accident.
4 Mr Marrell was called to give evidence, together with one of his former work colleagues, whom Mr Marrell sought to rely upon to corroborate his allegations that he experienced left knee problems in the days immediately following the transport accident. Both Mr Marrell and his work colleague were cross-examined. Also in evidence were medical reports and other material, including an affidavit from Mr Marrell’s partner. I have read these tendered documents, together with the transcript of the proceedings. I shall not refer to all of that material in the course of this judgment, but rather to those parts of the evidence and reports which I consider necessary to give context to and explain the conclusions reached in my judgment.
5 For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied that Mr Marrell suffered an injury to his left knee in the transport accident, the consequences of which can be described as at least very considerable. Mr Marrell should therefore be granted leave to commence common law proceedings.
Mr Marrell’s life before the transport accident
6 At the time of the transport accident, Mr Marrell was working for Serco on a full-time basis, as a control room officer at the Maribyrnong Detention Centre. As part of this employment, Mr Marrell had previously travelled overseas escorting detainees returning to their home country.
7 In his leisure time, Mr Marrell enjoyed rock and roll dancing and playing golf. He said that his preference was to play golf using a golf cart.
8 Mr Marrell had a history of cellulitis in his left leg, which afflicted him from time to time. He said that his symptoms began with some swelling in his leg, followed by a fever and nausea. Mr Marrell said that his symptoms were such that he usually required hospitalisation for IV antibiotics, but that at other times his general practitioner prescribed him oral antibiotics.
9 In December 2012, Mr Marrell said that he injured his right knee, when he fell over whilst walking his dog. After experiencing pain for a couple of months, Mr Marrell attended his general practitioner, who arranged for an x-ray to be taken of both his knees, as well as an ultrasound of his right knee. Mr Marrell said that he understood the scans to show that his right knee was slightly inflamed. Mr Marrell said that the pain and inflammation subsided after a few months, and that he did not have any ongoing troubles with his right knee until the time of the transport accident.
10 On 2 April 2015, Mr Marrell attended upon general practitioner, Dr Leon Lewi, at the East Keilor Clinic, complaining that he had experienced left knee pain for six months. Dr Lewi noted that his pain was “worse when walks – worse since playing golf”, and that it was also made worse by any running he was required to perform at work. Dr Lewi prescribed Mr Marrell with Movalis medication and arranged for an x-ray to be taken of his left knee.
11 Mr Marrell accepted that he had suffered some left knee pain at this time, but denied that it was constant. He thought the Movalis medication was prescribed for pain relief and thought that he had only used the one packet.
12 On 13 April 2015, bilateral x-rays of Mr Marrell’s knees were reported as demonstrating no advanced arthropathy and no destructive bony abnormality.
The transport accident and Mr Marrell’s symptoms in the days following
13 On Wednesday 27 May 2015, at approximately 6.00am, Mr Marrell stopped to get petrol on his way home from work. Whilst he was turning into the petrol station, a semi-trailer truck collided with the rear of his vehicle. Mr Marrell said that, after the accident, he got out of his car and exchanged contact details with the truck driver. Mr Marrell said that he was in shock at the time of the accident, following which he went home to bed to sleep, as he had worked overnight at the detention centre.
14 At around dinner time later that day, and whilst on his way to visit his partner, Mr Marrell purchased an elastic support bandage for his left knee, as he said it was sore.
15 The following day, Mr Marrell said that he was required to undertake a training course as part of his employment at the detention centre. He said that the morning class involved sitting in a classroom, and that he recalls keeping his knee elevated during that time due to pain.
16 Mr Marrell said that the afternoon class involved physical tasks, at which point he advised his instructor that he was restricted in the activities he could perform, due to left knee pain he was experiencing as a result of his involvement in a transport accident the previous day. Mr Marrell said that he told the instructor he was unable to kneel or bend due to the pain, and that he did not participate in any running exercises. At the end of the training session, Mr Marrell said that the instructor told him he would need to complete the physical aspect of the course when his knee had recovered.
17 Mr Marrell said that his knee remained very sore when he returned from the training course that night.
18 The following day, Friday 29 May 2015, Mr Marrell said that he attended the detention centre and was placed in the sally port, which involved checking vehicles that were coming in and out of the detention centre. Mr Marrell said that he inspected a number of vehicles over the course of the day, and that, by the end of the day, his left knee was very swollen, and had “swollen up like a big balloon” and that he “could hardly walk.”
19 After finishing work that day, Mr Marrell said that he tried to obtain an appointment with his general practitioner, as he was concerned by the swelling in his knee, but that he was unable to obtain an appointment until the following Tuesday.
20 On 2 June 2015, Mr Marrell attended upon Dr Lewi and reported that he had injured his left knee in a rear end collision. On examination, Dr Lewi noted mild effusion in the left knee, and that his joint line was tender. Dr Lewi recommended that Mr Marrell undergo an MRI scan of his left knee.
21 On 3 June 2015, Dr Lewi wrote a medical certificate stating that Mr Marrell was fit for work. The clinical record – or medical certificate of that day, provides no detail as to the state of Mr Marrell’s left knee on that day.
22 On 4 June 2015, an MRI scan was taken of Mr Marrell’s left knee. It was reported as demonstrating a radial tear of the medial meniscal posterior horn body junction with a small flat seam adjacent. There was also a full thickness chondral ulcer seen directly adjacent, which was considered most likely post-traumatic.
23 On 6 June 2015, Mr Marrell attended upon general practitioner, Dr William Mitchell, at the East Keilor Clinic. Dr Mitchell advised Mr Marrell of the MRI scan results and recommended that he undergo physiotherapy treatment and that he take regular analgesia. Dr Mitchell also referred him to orthopaedic surgeon, Mr Craig Mills.
24 At this consultation, Dr Mitchell provided Mr Marrell with a certificate of capacity stating that he had suffered “acute knee pains” after the transport accident, and that he was fit for light duties not requiring active lifting, bending, squatting or prolonged periods of walking and standing.
Mr Marrell’s subsequent medical treatment
25 On 17 June 2015, Mr Marrell attended upon Mr Mills. In a letter to Mr Marrell’s solicitors dated 15 November 2016, Mr Mills stated that he had obtained a history from Mr Marrell’s general practitioner that Mr Marrell had been involved in a transport accident in which he was rear ended, and in which his car had been written off. He noted that Mr Marrell had suffered acute knee pain since that time, mostly to the medial aspect, with movement reduction of around 50-90 degrees only. Mr Mills then noted that Mr Marrell provided a history that he had experienced “no prior major knee problems”, and that he had previously been prescribed Meloxicam for his knee dysfunction, which was of moderate benefit.
26 Mr Mills recommended that an arthroscopy be performed, which was conducted on 29 June 2015. The arthroscopy findings were that of a traumatic chondral ulcer to the medial femoral chondral of approximately 2.5-3 centimetres in area, and of an almost full thickness loss to the bone. There was also a posterior medial meniscus tear. In addition, Mr Mills noted some minor patellofemoral chondral changes.
27 Mr Mills was of the opinion that Mr Marrell had suffered a traumatic medial meniscus tear, traumatic medial femoral condylar ulcer, some patellofemoral chondral damage, and progressive osteoarthritis, which he considered to relate directly to the transport accident.
28 After the arthroscopy, Mr Marrell said that his left leg became swollen, painful and red, and that in September 2015, he was admitted to Sunshine Hospital for treatment of cellulitis. He said the cellulitis persisted, such that he was readmitted to hospital on further occasions in October and November 2015.
29 In June 2016, Mr Mills performed a partial left knee replacement, on the basis that Mr Marrell continued to experience left knee pain.
Mr Marrell’s work duties subsequent to the transport accident
30 Mr Marrell said that Dr Mitchell has provided him with certificates of capacity since 6 June 2015, restricting him to light duties. He said that he was put on light duties at the detention centre.
31 On 2 April 2016, Mr Marrell was terminated from his employment for serious misconduct. Mr Marrell strenuously denied this allegation, and said that he instructed his solicitors at the time to pursue a claim at the Fair Work Commission. However, Mr Marrell said that he discontinued those proceedings in August 2016, based upon legal advice to the effect that the limited value of the claim could not justify the legal costs associated with proceeding further.
32 Since ceasing his employment with Serco, Mr Marrell completed a real estate agent course, following which he worked for approximately five months as a real estate agent. Mr Marrell said that he had a disagreement with someone that he worked with and he was then let go from that employment.
33 Mr Marrell subsequently obtained employment performing quality control work for a company that produces bathroom pods. Mr Marrell said that he is able to cope in this work as he is not required to perform any bending, kneeling or squatting.
34 Mr Marrell claims that, while he is able to work full-time in his current employment, his knee impairment restricts him from ever returning to work as a detention officer, or in a similar role in a prison.
Medical opinions as to the cause of Mr Marrell’s left knee injury
35 In support of his claim that he injured his left knee in the transport accident, Mr Marrell relied upon medical reports tendered from his treating practitioners, as well as an opinion of orthopaedic surgeon, Mr Thomas Kossmann, who examined Mr Marrell for medico-legal purposes.
36 In a report from general practitioner, Dr Tsi Wai Kang, from the East Keilor Clinic, it was noted that Mr Marrell had suffered a traumatic injury to his left knee, resulting in a radial tear of the medial meniscus posterior horn body junction, with a small adjacent flap. A full thickness traumatic chondral ulcer was also noted. Dr Kang considered the sustained condition to be consistent with injury from the transport accident.
37 Mr Marrell also sought to rely upon two reports prepared by Mr Mills. In his most recent report, Mr Mills stated that Mr Marrell had suffered no prior symptoms before the transport accident, which is somewhat different to his initial report, which stated that Mr Marrell had suffered “no major prior symptoms”. Mr Mills then stated that, while there was likely to be pre-existing constitutional arthritis in both knees, such a condition was asymptomatic prior to the transport accident. Mr Mills then offered the following opinion on the cause of Mr Marrell’s knee injury:
“It is likely that there was constitutional osteoarthritis pre-existing in both knees that was asymptomatic prior to the motor vehicle accident. Partly the increase in symptoms referable to the patellofemoral joint, i.e. knee striking dashboard or similar, and however the accident has converted asymptomatic knees into bilateral symptomatic knees.”
38 Mr Marrell also relied upon medical opinions offered by Mr Kossmann, following examinations in January 2017 and December 2018. In in his initial report dated 25 January 2017, and in his subsequent report dated December 2018, Mr Kossmann detailed Mr Marrell’s history, including the attendance and history given to Dr Lewi in April 2015. Mr Kossmann then noted that Mr Marrell injured his left knee in the transport accident, and that he subsequently attended upon his general practitioner on 2 June 2015 complaining of pain in his left knee.
39 Mr Kossmann examined Mr Marrell, and was ultimately of the opinion that Mr Marrell had suffered an aggravation, acceleration and exacerbation of his left knee condition in the transport accident.
40 The TAC arranged for Mr Marrell to be examined by orthopaedic surgeon, Mr Michael Dooley, in July 2018. In his first report dated 26 July 2018, Mr Dooley referred to Mr Marrell’s attendance on Dr Lewi in April 2015 and the x-ray results taken at that time. In relation to the transport accident, Mr Dooley noted that after the accident, Mr Marrell was able to get out of his car and that he felt “okay”. Mr Dooley then noted that two days later, Mr Marrell said that he was aware of swelling to his left leg, following which he subsequently attended upon his doctor and was referred for radiological investigations.
41 Mr Dooley stated that, in his opinion, the mechanism of the transport accident was inconsistent with Mr Marrell sustaining a meniscal tear to his left knee. Mr Dooley stated that, if trauma had occurred, he would have expected Mr Marrell to have “noted severe left knee pain at the time of the accident, to have had considerable difficulty walking and to have needed medical attention on the day or at least the day after the accident”. Instead, Mr Dooley was of the opinion that the changes noted on the MRI scan predated the transport accident and were part of an “evolving naturally occurring osteoarthritis of the left knee joint”.
42 In a supplementary report dated 21 December 2018, Mr Dooley stated that he considered Mr Marrell to be suffering a constitutional evolving medial compartment osteoarthritis of both knee joints. Mr Dooley stated that, in his opinion, the findings of the meniscal tear and chondral ulceration related to the degenerative process and not to any trauma sustained in the transport accident.
43 In offering this opinion, Mr Dooley stated that Mr Marrell was not aware of any problems for two days after the transport accident, following which he then noted some swelling in his left leg.
44 After the TAC had served these reports from Mr Dooley on Mr Marrell’s solicitors, a further opinion was sought from Mr Kossmann, in relation to Mr Dooley’s opinion. In a supplementary report dated 5 February 2019, Mr Kossmann simply reiterated his previous opinion, offering no explanation for the difference in his opinion to that of Mr Dooley.
Mr Marrell’s reliability
45 The TAC defended this claim on the basis that Mr Marrell was an unreliable witness, to the extent that I should therefore reject his evidence as to the pain he allegedly suffered in the days immediately following the transport accident. Mr Marrell alleges that the transport accident is a cause of his left knee injury, and relies upon the presence of pain in that period as supporting this allegation.
46 In support of its submission that I reject Mr Marrell’s evidence as unreliable, the TAC focused on the following matters:
(i) Mr Marrell provided inconsistent accounts as to when he first suffered left knee pain following the transport accident. In particular, the TAC relied upon the history taken by Mr Dooley that Mr Marrell initially felt okay, and that he said he became aware of swelling in his left leg two days later.
Mr Marrell’s initial affidavit provided some detail in relation to the difficulties he experienced whilst undertaking the training course the day following the transport accident. However, the additional information in relation to the purchasing of an elastic bandage, was not offered until Mr Marrell swore his third affidavit, shortly prior to the hearing of the proceedings.
I considered Mr Marrell’s explanation in relation to the purchasing of the elastic bandage and the difficulties he experienced in the days thereafter to be credible. The apparent lack of detail contained in his first affidavit should not reflect adversely upon Mr Marrell’s reliability.
I accept Mr Marrell’s evidence that his knee was sore from the time of the transport accident, including whilst he was undertaking a training course at work the following day. I accept his evidence that by the time he finished work on the Friday evening, Mr Marrell was concerned about the swelling in his knee, such that he arranged to attend upon his general practitioner.
I do not consider this evidence to be inconsistent with the history contained in Mr Dooley’s report. That is, I am satisfied that Mr Marrell was initially “ok” enough to be able to attend work, and that it was only when his left knee swelled up like a “big balloon” two days later, that he thought he had a problem.
(ii) Mr Marrell sought to infer that he had ceased his employment with Serco as a consequence of his left knee injury. In support of this allegation, the TAC criticised Mr Marrell for not stating the reason for his dismissal in his first affidavit. Further, the TAC referred to the medical reports of Mr Kossmann which noted that Mr Marrell ceased his work as a correctional officer at a detention centre at about the time that he underwent his partial left knee replacement, suggesting a link between the two.
Mr Marrell’s first affidavit disclosed that he was dismissed from his employment, but did not state the reason for his dismissal. The contents of that affidavit could have been more fulsome, and ideally, could have detailed the reason for the dismissal (even if Mr Marrell denied that there was a proper basis for the dismissal). However, in circumstances where the dismissal was disclosed in the affidavit, I am not prepared to draw an adverse finding against Mr Marrell in respect of his reliability on this matter.
I note that Mr Kossmann did not expressly record that Mr Marrell attributed his ceasing work with Serco to his left knee injury.
Further, I note that in his reports, Dr Kang referred to Mr Marrell being dismissed for reasons unrelated to this claim.
I therefore accept Mr Marrell’s assurances that he has at no time sought to mislead the court, by attributing his loss of employment with Serco to the transport accident.
47 Overall, I consider the medical reports and clinical records to be relatively consistent with Mr Marrell’s oral account of his medical condition both prior to and subsequent to the transport accident. I have concluded that he is a reliable witness.
Evidence from Mr Marrell’s work colleague
48 Mr Marrell sought to rely upon evidence from his former work colleague, Mr Raymond George, with whom he had worked at the Maribyrnong Detention Centre from approximately 2010 to 2015. In an affidavit sworn 19 July 2019, Mr George claimed to recall having a conversation with Mr Marrell the day after the transport accident, at which time he noted that Mr Marrell walked with a limp.
49 When Mr George was called to give evidence, he said that this conversation took place at the gatehouse, and that it could have occurred the day or so after the transport accident. Mr Marrell said that he was working in the gatehouse at the time of this conversation.
50 However, documents were then subsequently put to Mr George which indicated that he himself had suffered a work accident on 25 May 2015, following which he was certified as unfit for work duties. Mr George accepted those documents as accurate, before then suggesting that he may have seen Mr Marrell at work on the day that he attended the detention centre to submit his own medical certificates.
51 In circumstances where Mr George initially said that he believed this conversation with Mr Marrell to have taken place whilst he himself was working at the gatehouse, I am of the opinion, based on the contemporaneous documents, that it is more likely that Mr George is mistaken about the entirety of this conversation. I therefore do not propose to rely upon Mr George’s evidence in determining Mr Marrell’s claim.
Conclusions as to whether or not the transport accident was a cause of Mr Marrell’s left knee injury
52 I am satisfied that Mr Marrell suffered pain in his left knee from the time of the transport accident.
53 I do not consider it necessary for there to be direct evidence that his knee hit the dashboard, as suggested by Mr Mills, to consider the transport accident the likely cause of such pain. I consider Mr Marrell’s failure to give evidence as to what happened to his left knee in the accident to be both understandable and credible, in circumstances where the accident was unexpected and following which he was in a state of shock.
54 In circumstances where Mr Marrell’s car was hit from behind, by a semi-trailer, which caused his car to be written off, I am satisfied that Mr Marrell suffered a reasonably significant impact in the transport accident.
55 I accept Mr Marrell’s evidence that his left knee was sore from that time on. I accept that he then slept during the day, which allowed his knee to rest, following which he then purchased an elastic bandage that evening.
56 While his partner provided an affidavit detailing the consequences she had observed in Mr Marrell due to his left knee injury, she was silent in respect of his condition in the days immediately following the transport accident, including his condition on the night of the accident when he attended her house after purchasing the elastic bandage. The TAC suggested that I might infer from the absence of such evidence, that it would not have assisted Mr Marrell. However, in circumstances where the transport accident occurred more than three years ago, Mr Marrell’s partner may have long-forgotten Mr Marrell’s condition at that time. Given she was not called to give evidence and was not cross-examined, any evidence Mr Marrell’s partner may or may not have given as to his condition at that time would be speculative.
57 From the time of his first affidavit, Mr Marrell has alleged that he was restricted in his ability to undertake the training course on the day following the transport accident. The TAC did not challenge Mr Marrell on this aspect of his evidence, nor did they seek to call evidence from his employer or the training instructor, to contradict his evidence that he experienced difficulties that day.
58 Mr Marrell then alleged that, by the Friday afternoon, his knee had swollen to the size of a small balloon. While Mr Dooley does not describe Mr Marrell’s knee quite so graphically in his report, and while such a description may be out of proportion with Dr Lewi’s note of 2 June 2015, it does not detract from my acceptance that Mr Marrell had suffered, from his perspective, a concerning level of swelling by that time.
59 I note that an MRI scan was performed on Mr Marrell’s knee within a matter of days of him attending upon Dr Lewi, which was reported as being consistent with a trauma to the left knee.
60 The TAC submitted that I should reject the medical opinions relied upon by Mr Marrell, and instead prefer the opinion of Mr Dooley.
61 The TAC submitted that there was no basis upon which to understand Dr Kang’s opinion that the transport accident was a cause of these traumatic injuries, in circumstances where he did not provide any explanation as to the reasons for which he came to this conclusion.
62 I do not accept this submission. Dr Kang is a general practitioner at the clinic Mr Marrell has attended for many years. He was aware of Mr Marrell’s past history, notably that there was no obvious pathology following the x-ray ordered in April 2015, but that, within a short period of time following the transport accident, Mr Marrell had attended and complained of acute pain in his medial left knee. Further, in his report, Dr Kang referred to the MRI results which were reported as being consistent with a traumatic injury. In the circumstances, although Dr Kang’s opinion on causation is relatively brief, I do not consider it a “bare ipse dixit.”[1] I am satisfied that there is a proper basis for Dr Kang’s opinion that the transport accident is a cause of Mr Marrell’s left knee injury.
[1]Matika (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305 at [87]
63 I accept the TAC’s submission that the medical opinions of both Mr Mills and Mr Kossmann are less than ideal, in circumstances where Mr Mills does not seem to have been fully aware of the extent of Mr Marrell’s pre-existing symptomatic left knee condition, and where Mr Kossmann does not offer a detailed explanation as to the basis of his opinion that the transport accident was a cause of the left knee injury.
64 I also accept that Mr Dooley offers the most detailed analysis as to the pre-existing pathology in Mr Marrell’s left knee, and the subsequent pathology seen in the post-accident MRI scan, which was further noted in the surgery performed by Mr Mills. However, Mr Dooley’s opinion is offered on the premise that Mr Marrell suffered no symptoms until two days after the transport accident.
65 For the reasons detailed above, I do not accept that history. That is, I am satisfied that Mr Marrell had a sore knee from the time of the transport accident, and that it restricted him at work in the days thereafter, before it was so swollen that he needed to seek medical attention.
66 Mr Dooley said that if the left knee was injured in the transport accident, he would have expected severe pain, difficulties walking and the need for medical treatment within one or two days of the transport accident. In general terms, I consider such a description to fit with the description provided by Mr Marrell in respect of his left knee in the days following the transport accident.
67 Save for Mr Dooley, who was under the impression Mr Marrell did not experience any pain in his left knee until two days after the transport accident, Dr Kang, Mr Mills and Mr Kossmann each offered opinions in this matter on the basis that Mr Marrell’s pain had existed since the time of the transport accident. Dr Kang, Mr Mills and Mr Kossmann support Mr Marrell’s allegation that he suffered a left knee injury in the transport accident. Notwithstanding my reservations as to the reports of Mr Mills and Mr Kossmann, I still have some regard to their opinions in this matter.
68 Ultimately, the determination as to whether or not the transport accident was a cause of Mr Marrell’s left knee injury is to be decided by me, after having considered the whole of the evidence and in taking a common sense approach. It is not a determination that is to be governed by medical opinions or medical imaging.
69 For the reasons detailed above, I am satisfied that the transport accident caused Mr Marrell to suffer a left knee injury, as a result of which he was ultimately required to undergo a partial left knee replacement. The TAC indicated that, in circumstances where I was satisfied the transport accident was a cause of his left knee injury, it would not dispute (at least from a pain and suffering perspective), that the consequences to Mr Marrell can be described as at least very considerable. I consider this to be an appropriate concession.
70 In view of the foregoing, I will now grant Mr Marrell leave to commence common law proceedings for the injuries he suffered in the transport accident on 27 May 2015.
0