McCormick v Mt Pleasant Stud Farm Pty Ltd (No.2)

Link copied
Case Copied 46 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: McCormick v Mt Pleasant Stud Farm Pty Ltd (No.2) [2021] NSWDC 489
Hearing dates: 19, 20, 23, 24, 25 August 2021
Date of orders: 17 September 2021
Decision date: 17 September 2021
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Sidis ADCJ
Decision:

(1) Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,395,525.

(2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed. This order is suspended for 14 days to allow parties, should they wish to do so, to apply to list the matter for submissions on the matter of costs.

(3) The exhibits will be retained for 28 days.

(4) My reasons are published.

Catchwords:

PERSONAL INJURIES - work injury damages - conflicts in evidence - credit - employer’s duty of care - causation - contributory negligence - voluntary assumption of risk - value of non-pecuniary parts of salary package – assessment

Legislation Cited:

Workers Compensation Act 1987 (WCA) ss 151E, 151G, 151N, 151O

Cases Cited:

Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd [1994] HCA 18; (1994) 179 CLR 520

Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University [2005] HCA 14 at [12]; (2005) 214 ALR 349; (2005) 79 ALJR 839

Gittani Stone Pty Limited v Pavkovic [2007] NSWCA 355

Naxakis v Western General Hospital (1999) 197 CLR 269

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mr S McCormick (plaintiff)
Mt Pleasant Stud Farm Pty Ltd (defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr W Fitzsimmons SC with Ms S Warren for the plaintiff
Ms T Berberian and Mr R Perla for the defendant

Solicitors:
Lough & Wells Lawyers for the plaintiff
Leigh Virtue and Associates for the defendant
File Number(s): 2021/00015061
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. The plaintiff in this matter claimed that the defendant, his employer, was negligent in the manner in which it required him to perform his duties as manager and trainer at its thoroughbred horse stud, known as Mt Pleasant Stud Farm. He claimed that, as a result of the defendant’s negligence, he suffered injuries to his neck, right arm and shoulder that deprived him of any income earning capacity.

  2. The claim was brought pursuant to the provisions of s 151E of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (WCA) and was therefore governed by common law principles, modified as provided for in the WCA. Damages are limited by s 151G of the WCA to loss of past and future income.

  3. The claim arose out of an accident that occurred at the defendant’s premises on 29 December 2014. The plaintiff fell from a horse, Margot, that he was breaking in.

  4. The defendant denied any breach of duty and challenged the plaintiff’s claim of injury and his claim to be permanently unfit for employment. The defendant also relied on ss 151N and 151O of the WCA in alleging contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk.

Background

  1. The plaintiff commenced employment, initially as farm manager, at the defendant’s stud farm in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McCormick v Mt Pleasant Stud Farm Pty Ltd (No.2) 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
[2021] NSWDC 489
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, Mr. McCormick, in the course of his employment at the defendant's stud farm. The plaintiff claimed damages for injuries sustained in a workplace accident that resulted in significant physical and psychological harm. The court was tasked with determining the extent of the defendant's liability, the value of the damages to be awarded, and whether any contributory negligence or voluntary assumption of risk by the plaintiff should reduce the compensation.

The legal issues before the court included the employer's duty of care, the causation of the plaintiff's injuries, and the extent to which the plaintiff's contributory negligence or voluntary assumption of risk should mitigate the damages. Additionally, the court had to assess the value of the non-pecuniary components of the plaintiff's salary package and how these should factor into the total damages awarded.

The court found that the employer had breached its duty of care, leading directly to the plaintiff's injuries. It was determined that the plaintiff's contributory negligence was not significant enough to substantially reduce the damages, and the plaintiff's voluntary assumption of risk did not absolve the employer of its liability. The court awarded damages of $1,395,525, which included compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs, with an opportunity for the parties to apply for a review of the costs order.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,395,525.

(2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed. This order is suspended for 14 days to allow parties, should they wish to do so, to apply to list the matter for submissions on the matter of costs.

(3) The exhibits will be retained for 28 days.

(4) My reasons are published.

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.