28-29 June 2018; 3-6 September 2018; 29-30 November 2018; 6 February 2019; 29 March 2019 (written submissions); 26 April 2019
Date of orders:
23 May 2019
Decision date:
23 May 2019
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Before:
Dicker SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff. (2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed. (3) Leave to the parties to seek within 14 days a different costs order to that set out in order 2 above. (4) The parties are to bring in agreed short minutes of order within seven days reflecting these reasons for decision. (5) Exhibits to be returned at the expiry of 28 days.
Catchwords:
Torts – negligence – motor vehicle accident – liability not in issue – extent of injuries arising from the accident – whether doctor had backdated documents - extent to which, if at all, the plaintiff’s future earning capacity has been affected – whether plaintiff prevented from being a commercial pilot – approach to the award of a buffer for loss of future earning capacity – plaintiff’s credit strongly attacked by defendant
Aylwin Mathews (Plaintiff) Jennifer Schuler (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel: P Mooney SC (Plaintiff) B Wilson (Defendant)
Solicitors: TBC Lawyers (Plaintiff) Hall & Wilcox Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s):
2017/00347085
CONTENTS
PARAGRAPHS
Judgment
1
The pleadings
5
Plaintiff’s background and employment history
9
Prior medical history
21
The motor vehicle accident
23
Records at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital arising from the accident
32
The plaintiff’s evidence
The plaintiff’s oral evidence
34
Oral evidence of Mr David Newling
127
Oral evidence of Dr Anthony Lam
132
Oral evidence of Dr Aladdin Matter
148
Evidence for the defendant
The defendant's oral evidence
162
Oral evidence of Ms Anne Nielsen
177
Medical evidence relied upon by the plaintiff
182
Medical certificate prepared…
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 Mathews v Schuler
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Mathews v Schuler [2019] NSWDC 203
Case
[2019] NSWDC 203
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Mathews v Schuler involved a motor vehicle accident where the issue was the extent of injuries suffered by the plaintiff and the impact on their future earning capacity. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's doctor had backdated medical documents, the degree to which the plaintiff's capacity to earn in the future had been affected, and whether the plaintiff had been prevented from becoming a commercial pilot. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the appropriate method for awarding a buffer for loss of future earning capacity and the impact of the defendant's attack on the plaintiff's credit.
The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were genuine and that the doctor had not backdated any documents. The plaintiff's future earning capacity had been affected, but not to the extent that they were prevented from becoming a commercial pilot. The court held that a buffer for loss of future earning capacity was appropriate, taking into account the defendant's attack on the plaintiff's credit. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.
The court delivered a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs. The court also allowed the parties to seek a different costs order within 14 days. The parties were directed to prepare and submit agreed short minutes of order within seven days, and exhibits were to be returned within 28 days.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff.
(2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
(3) Leave to the parties to seek within 14 days a different costs order to that set out in order 2 above.
(4) The parties are to bring in agreed short minutes of order within seven days reflecting these reasons for decision.
(5) Exhibits to be returned at the expiry of 28 days.