Michael Aaron James (by his next friend Rhonda Dawn James) v Grant

MICHAEL AARON JAMES (by his next friend RHONDA DAWN JAMES) -v- GRANT [2009] WADC 201 (S)

Last Update: 27/01/2010

MICHAEL AARON JAMES (by his next friend RHONDA DAWN JAMES) -v- GRANT [2009] WADC 201 (S)
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2009] WADC 201 (S)
Case No:	CIV:56/2006	Heard:	2-5, 8-12, 15 & 17 JUNE 2009
Coram:	MAZZA DCJ	Delivered:	22/12/2009
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:	22/01/2010
No of Pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiff awarded damages in the sum of $7,448,455.61
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	MICHAEL AARON JAMES (by his next friend RHONDA DAWN JAMES) CLAIRE REBECCA GRANT
Catchwords:	Damages calculated
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	James v Grant [2009] WADC 201

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : MICHAEL AARON JAMES (by his next friend RHONDA DAWN JAMES) -v- GRANT [2009] WADC 201 (S) CORAM : MAZZA DCJ HEARD : 2-5, 8-12, 15 & 17 JUNE 2009 DELIVERED : 22 DECEMBER 2009

SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 22 JANUARY 2010 FILE NO/S : CIV 56 of 2006 BETWEEN : MICHAEL AARON JAMES (by his next friend RHONDA DAWN JAMES)

Plaintiff

AND

CLAIRE REBECCA GRANT

Defendant

Catchwords:

Damages calculated

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Plaintiff awarded damages in the sum of $7,448,455.61

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr T Lampropoulos SC & Mr M E Herron

Defendant : Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Donna Percy & Co

Defendant : K N Allan

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

James v Grant [2009] WADC 201

(Page 3)

1 MAZZA DCJ: On 22 December 2009 I published reasons and made findings of fact. I gave the parties the opportunity to consider those reasons and make calculations, where necessary, in accordance with my findings: James v Grant [2009] WADC 201.

2 The parties' legal representatives have agreed, based on my findings, that judgment should be entered for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $7,448,455.61. That figure is made up as follows:

MICHAEL JAMES	22 years
Schedule	JUDGMENT
Past & Future Economic Loss & Superannuation	350,000.00
Past Gratuitous Services (with amended interest of $134,036.53 as at 22/1/2010)	489,194.26
Future Gratuitous Services	31,961.80
Future Medical Expenses	219,630.11
Prescriptions	25,090.66
MRSA	3,131.48
Vitamins and minerals	26,145.27
Oxygen etc	245,167.71
Future Equipment Expenses	118,813.46
Future Thickened Fluids	59,355.78
Bladder and Bowel Requirements	68,837.50
Future Attendant Care incl domestic assistance (incl for Carer Travel of $50,951.25)	4,420,213.77
Housing Modifications (incl Maintenance of $72,787.50)	307,042.50
Extraordinary Holiday Expenses	60,000.00
Motor Vehicle Expenses	146,111.81
Past Travelling Expenses	10,420.90
Travelling Expenses – 'Wilson v McLeay'	3,238.20
Special Damages	184,100.40
Increased Utility Expenses	3,000.00
Trustees Fees	350,000.00
General Damages	327,000.00
TOTAL	7,448,455.61

(Page 4)

3 With respect to the question of costs, I have made an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the action to be assessed. The plaintiff wishes to apply for special costs orders. Failing agreement, I will resolve this issue in due course.

| |

The matter before the court involved a plaintiff, Michael Aaron James, represented by his next friend Rhonda Dawn James, against the defendant, Grant. The dispute centred on the calculation of damages following a motor vehicle accident. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate method to calculate the plaintiff's damages, particularly concerning the application of the principle of mitigation of loss and the quantum of damages to be awarded. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his losses and if the damages claimed were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties and found that the plaintiff had not taken all reasonable steps to mitigate his losses. The court applied the principle of mitigation and reduced the damages accordingly. The court also considered the appropriate quantum of damages and arrived at a figure that reflected the plaintiff's losses and the principle of mitigation. The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the sum of $7,448,455.61.

The court's final orders included the award of damages to the plaintiff in the specified amount, reflecting the court's determination of the appropriate quantum of damages after applying the principle of mitigation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established