Matthews v Dent

Case [2010] NSWDC 68
CITATION: Matthews v Dent & Anor [2010] NSWDC 68
HEARING DATE(S): 16 and 21 September 2009
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
7 May 2010
JURISDICTION: Civil
JUDGMENT OF: Levy SC DCJ
DECISION: 1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $715,687;
2. The defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;
3. The exhibits may be returned;
4. Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.
CATCHWORDS: TORT – motor vehicle collision - DAMAGES – assessment of damages for personal injury under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 – physical and psychological injuries – conflicting medical evidence – medical witnesses not called to explain opinions – loss of earning capacity – domestic assistance – future treatment – assessments required despite absence of definitive evidence as to costing
LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
CASES CITED: Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst [1940] HCA 45; (1940) 64 CLR 53
Angel v Hawkesbury Council [2008] NSWCA 130
Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320
Daw v Toyworld (NSW) Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 25
Larson v Commissioner of Police [2004] NSWCA 126
Luxton v Vines [1952] HCA 19; (1952) 85 CLR 352
Majkic v Bonnano [2008] NSWCA 253
Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227
Morgan v Gibson [1997] NSWCA 212
Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; (1965) 114 CLR 164
Strinic v Singh [2009] NSWCA 15
Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; (1960) 108 CLR 158
PARTIES: Helen Rose Matthews (Plaintiff)
Linda Dent (First defendant)
Edward Thomas Rodham (Second defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S): 5313 of 2008
COUNSEL: Mr A Lidden SC with Mr P Khandar (Plaintiff)
Mr A Bowen (Defendants)
SOLICITORS: LJ Sharpe & Co (Plaintiff)
Lee & Lyons (Defendants)

JUDGMENT

Table of Contents

A. INTRODUCTION [1] – [14]
Nature of the case [1] – [2]
Issues [3] – [8]
Credibility of testimony [9] – [12]
Summary of findings [13]
Assessed heads of damage [14]
B. EVIDENCE REVIEW [15] – [158]
Overview of evidence [16]
Review of oral evidence [17] – [73]
    The plaintiff, Mrs Helen Matthews
[18] – [58]
      Personal history
[18]
      Work history
[19] – [22]
      Health, social, family circumstances, and earning capacity
[23] – [29]
      Pre-injury work duties
[30] – [36]
      Motor vehicle collision in question
[37] – [38]
      Plaintiff’s awareness of the events
[39]
      Injuries and immediate after effects
[40]
      Treatment and rehabilitation
[41] – [44]
      Disabilities
[45] – [52]
      Post-injury attempts at carrying out work
[53] – [54]
      Post-injury activities
[55]
      DVD showing selected activities – comments by plaintiff
[56] – [58]
    Mrs Melissa Jones
[59] – [68]
    Mrs Lorraine Holloway
[69] – [73]
Medical evidence – reports and materials [74] – [158]
    Treatment reports
[75] – [101]
      Dr Yap
[76]
      Dr Mudbidri
[77]
      Dr Zaka
[78]
      Dr Cotterell
[79] – [84]
      Dr McCombe
[85] – [90]
      Mr Hewitt
[91] – [94]
      Medical investigations
[95] – [101]
    Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service reports
[102] – [106]
    Reports obtained by plaintiff’s solicitor
[107]…

Continue reading Matthews v Dent

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Matthews v Dent [2010] NSWDC 68
Case
[2010] NSWDC 68
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Matthews v Dent involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Matthews, and the defendants, Dent, arising from a motor vehicle collision. Matthews sought damages for personal injuries sustained in the accident under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. The plaintiff claimed both physical and psychological injuries, along with loss of earning capacity, domestic assistance, and future treatment costs. The central issues before the court included the assessment of damages, the credibility of conflicting medical evidence, and the necessity of making assessments despite the absence of definitive evidence regarding certain costs.

The court had to determine the appropriate compensation for the plaintiff's physical and psychological injuries. The plaintiff presented medical evidence that was in conflict with evidence provided by the defendants. Notably, the medical witnesses who authored reports were not called to explain their opinions, which posed a challenge in assessing the credibility and weight of the evidence. The court needed to decide how to reconcile these conflicting reports and what weight to give to each. Furthermore, the court had to assess the loss of earning capacity, the need for domestic assistance, and the costs of future treatment, despite the lack of definitive evidence on certain aspects.

After considering the evidence, the court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to damages of $715,687. The court held that the plaintiff's claims for physical and psychological injuries, loss of earning capacity, domestic assistance, and future treatment were substantiated, even in the absence of definitive evidence on specific costs. The court found the plaintiff's evidence more credible and provided detailed reasons for the assessment of each element of damages. The court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis, unless otherwise ordered, and allowed the exhibits to be returned. The court also granted liberty to apply for further orders if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $715,687;

2. The defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;

3. The exhibits may be returned;

4. Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.

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.