SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
McChesney v Singh & Ors [2002] QSC 311
PARTIES:
TONI ANNE McCHESNEY (BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN JANICE ANNE McCHESNEY)
(Plaintiff)
v
MUKHITAR SINGH
(First Defendant)
PETER AARON HOPKINS
(Second Defendant)
SUNCORP INSURANCE & FINANCE
(Third Defendant)
SUNCORP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 075 695 966)
(Fourth Defendant)
FAI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (ACN 000 327 855)
(Fifth Defendant)FILE NO/S:
8851 of 1998
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
7 October 2002
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
11-14 June 2002 and 29-30 August 2002
JUDGE:
Mackenzie J
ORDER:
1. That judgment be given for the plaintiff against the fourth defendant in the sum of $1, 885, 276, subject to addition of any sum which may be determined to be payable in respect of management costs relating to the moneys payable to the plaintiff.
2. That the plaintiff and fourth defendant exchange submissions in writing on issues concerning management of damages on or before 4pm on 15 November 2002, and deliver final submissions to my Associate no later than 4pm on 20 November 2002.
3. That, unless submissions to the contrary are exchanged and delivered within the time limits referred to in paragraph 2, the fourth defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs, including reserved costs if any, to be assessed.
4. That leave be given to either party to request that both or either of the issues referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 be listed for oral hearing if deemed necessary or desirable.
CATCHWORDS:
TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – where plaintiff severely injured in a traffic accident
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES – PAIN AND SUFFERING – LOSS OF AMENITIES OR CAPACITY FOR ENJOYMENT – where claim for pain and suffering and loss of amenities
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – REFERENCE TO AMOUNT CLAIMED – where claim for past and future economic loss
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – VOLUNTARY OBLIGATIONS – where application of the principles in Griffith v Kerkemeyer - where review of case law developments – where in general additional services provided gratuitously to serve a victim’s need should be compensated – whether this extends to services and companionship that are rendered as an expression of a pre-existing or continuing relationship – where care claimed while plaintiff was in hospital – where care claimed on plaintiff’s return home
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where claim for Wilson and McLeay damages – avoidance of double compensation – whether to allow when a separate travel expense and gratuitous care claims made for attendance at hospital
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE…
Continue reading McChesney v Singh
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- McChesney v Singh [2002] QSC 311
- Case
- [2002] QSC 311
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court was required to decide related to the measure of damages for personal injury, the assessment of non-pecuniary damages, and the extent to which gratuitous care and services provided by family members should be compensated. The court also considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for future care and accommodation costs, and whether certain items, such as computer equipment and modifications to the plaintiff's home, were compensable. The court further examined the principles of double compensation and whether the plaintiff's claims for travel expenses, gratuitous care, and medical expenses should be allowed.
In its judgment, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for his injuries and losses. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, and that the amount claimed was reasonable. The court also held that gratuitous care provided by family members should be compensated, but that this did not extend to services and companionship that were rendered as an expression of a pre-existing or continuing relationship. The court further found that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for future care and accommodation costs, and that certain items, such as computer equipment and modifications to the plaintiff's home, were compensable. The court held that there was no double compensation in the plaintiff's claims for travel expenses, gratuitous care, and medical expenses. The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the sum of $1,885,276, subject to the addition of any sum which may be determined to be payable in respect of management costs relating to the moneys payable to the plaintiff.
The court further ordered that the plaintiff and the defendant exchange written submissions on issues concerning management of damages by a specified date, and that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs if submissions were not exchanged within the specified time limits. The court also granted leave to either party to request that the issues be listed for oral hearing if deemed necessary or desirable.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. That judgment be given for the plaintiff against the fourth defendant in the sum of $1, 885, 276, subject to addition of any sum which may be determined to be payable in respect of management costs relating to the moneys payable to the plaintiff.
2. That the plaintiff and fourth defendant exchange submissions in writing on issues concerning management of damages on or before 4pm on 15 November 2002, and deliver final submissions to my Associate no later than 4pm on 20 November 2002.
3. That, unless submissions to the contrary are exchanged and delivered within the time limits referred to in paragraph 2, the fourth defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs, including reserved costs if any, to be assessed.
4. That leave be given to either party to request that both or either of the issues referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 be listed for oral hearing if deemed necessary or desirable.
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.