McQuitty v Midgley

Case [2016] QSC 36

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

McQuitty v Midgley & Anor [2016] QSC 36

PARTIES:

TAI RAYMOND MCQUITTY, by his litigation guardians, KATHARINA KIRGIS and ROBYN IRENE ATKINSON

(plaintiff)
v
MIDGLEY
(first defendant)
AND
SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LTD
ACN 83 075 695 966
(second defendant)

 FILE NO:

BS3108/13

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

4 March 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27-30 April 2015

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDERS:

The order of the court is that:

1.   The damages are assessed at $2,719,500.05.

2.   The parties are at liberty to make submissions in writing as to the further orders to be made within 7 days.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – PARTICULAR AWARDS OF GENERAL DAMAGES – QUEENSLAND – where the plaintiff suffered a brain injury in a motor vehicle accident – where the plaintiff had a pre-existing personality issues, an anger problem and demonstrated anti-social behaviour – where there were multiple injuries – whether the plaintiff suffered a “moderate” or “serious” brain injury for the purposes of assessing an “injury scale value” under the Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld) – whether there was aggravation of a pre-existing condition for the purposes of reducing the “injury scale value” – whether the injury scale value should be uplifted

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – where gratuitous care was provided to the plaintiff by friends and family but there was conflicting evidence as to how many hours per day – where the plaintiff’s pre-injury history may indicate an existing need for care – whether the evidence, including expert reports, demonstrated a past and future need for care of five to twelve hours per day

Butler v Egg & Egg Pulp Marketing Board (1966) 114 CLR 185; [1966] HCA 38, cited
CSR Ltd v Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1; [1992] HCA 54, cited
Glen v Sullivan [2015] NSWCA 191, not applied
Grincelis v House (2000) 201 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 42, considered
Kriz v King [2007] 1 Qd R 327; [2006] QCA 351, applied
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638; [1990] HCA 20, followed
Mt Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383; [1970] HCA 60, cited
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164; [1965] HCA 34, not applied
Seltsam Pty Ltd v Ghaleb [2005] NSWCA 208, cited
Smith v Gellibrand Support Services Inc (2013) 42 VR 197; [2013] VSCA 368, cited
Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327, considered
Waller v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2010] 2 Qd R 560; [2010] QCA 17, considered
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158; [1960] HCA 58, not applied

Winters v Bishop [2014] QSC 312, considered

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) ss 59, 61, 62, 69

Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld) Sch 3, Sch 4 Pt 1

COUNSEL:

J A Griffin…

Continue reading McQuitty v Midgley

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
McQuitty v Midgley [2016] QSC 36
Case
[2016] QSC 36
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McQuitty v Midgley, the plaintiff sought damages following a motor vehicle accident that resulted in a brain injury. The dispute centred on the classification of the severity of the brain injury, the impact of the plaintiff's pre-existing personality issues and the appropriate assessment of damages, including the valuation of gratuitous care provided by family and friends. The matter was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court.

The central legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate "injury scale value" under the Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld) for the brain injury sustained by the plaintiff, assessing whether the injury was "moderate" or "serious," and considering whether the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions warranted a reduction in the "injury scale value." Additionally, the court had to determine the adequacy of the evidence supporting the plaintiff's claimed need for five to twelve hours of daily care, both past and future.

The court considered the evidence presented, including expert reports and testimonies regarding the severity of the brain injury and the plaintiff's pre-existing personality issues. It evaluated the conflicting evidence about the extent and nature of the gratuitous care provided by family and friends. Ultimately, the court found that the brain injury was serious and awarded damages, taking into account the various factors and evidence presented. The court concluded that the appropriate "injury scale value" should not be uplifted due to the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions and that the evidence supported a need for care of up to twelve hours per day.

The court's orders were that the total damages awarded to the plaintiff were $2,719,500.05. The parties were directed to make written submissions regarding further orders within seven days.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the court is that:

1. The damages are assessed at $2,719,500.05.

2. The parties are at liberty to make submissions in writing as to the further orders to be made within 7 days.

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.