McDonald (as Administratrix of Boundy) v Spargo

This case involved an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by Glenys Irene McDonald, as administratrix of the estate of the late Brian Allan Boundy, against Shaun Derrick Spargo and Scott. The dispute concerned the principles of damages, specifically the "once and for all" rule, and the use of actuarial evidence by a judge as opposed to a jury. The applicant sought to challenge conflicting decisions from the Court of Appeal of New South Wales and the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the court had the power to receive evidence of the plaintiff's death after the proceedings had commenced, and if so, whether that discretion was exercised on proper grounds. A further issue concerned the relevance and application of actuarial evidence in assessing damages, particularly when the plaintiff had died before the final determination of their claim. The applicant argued that the actuarial evidence presented to the Master, who assessed the damages, was based on an assumption that the plaintiff would live beyond retirement age, which proved to be incorrect.

The applicant contended that the Full Court erred in its approach to the actuarial evidence. The court was referred to an article by Wickens, which discussed the rationale of adding an annuity, suggesting that actuarial evidence is intended to account for the whole range of circumstances in which people may die. However, the applicant clarified that their argument was not that the actuarial evidence inherently accounted for the specific circumstances of this death, but rather that the Master had made an incorrect assumption about the plaintiff's life expectancy based on that evidence. The court considered whether the rules of court permitted the reception of evidence of death and whether such evidence was relevant to the assessment of damages.