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
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr S McCormick (plaintiff)
Mt Pleasant Stud Farm Pty Ltd (defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr W Fitzsimmons SC with Ms S Warren for the plaintiff
Ms T Berberian and Mr R Perla for the defendant
Lough & Wells Lawyers for the plaintiff
Leigh Virtue and Associates for the defendant
File Number(s): 2021/00015061 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
The plaintiff commenced employment, initially as farm manager, at the defendant’s stud farm in…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWDC 489
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.