Nichols v Curtis

Case [2010] QCA 303

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Nichols v Curtis & Anor [2010] QCA 303

PARTIES:

SHANNON MICHELLE NICHOLS
(plaintiff/applicant)
v
ROBERT GRAHAM CURTIS
(first defendant/first respondent)
QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED
ACN 003 191 035
(second defendant/second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 2866 of 2010
DC No 3070 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 October 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 August 2010

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fraser and Chesterman JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Grant the application for leave to appeal, allow the appeal, and vary the judgment given in the District Court on 19 February 2010 by ordering that there be judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $52,418.10;1.  

Vary the order made on 23 March 2010 by omitting from the order the words “to a maximum of $2,500”;2.  

The second respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.3.  

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES – where the plaintiff/applicant sought leave to appeal pursuant to s 118 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – where the primary judge assessed damages in the applicant’s personal injuries claim and ordered judgment in the amount of $47,618.10 against the second respondent – where the applicant argued that the primary judge erred in rejecting the applicant’s claim for past economic loss – where the primary judge found that the applicant did not give evidence that she lost employment or rejected specific work or general types of work due to her injuries – whether the primary judge erred in rejecting the claim for past economic loss – whether the primary judge erred in concluding that there was no evidence that the applicant’s impaired capacity for employment resulted in financial loss between the accident and trial – whether the primary judge erred in holding that there was no evidence that the applicant excluded any category of work in seeking employment – whether the evidence justified an award of past economic loss

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – BY LEAVE OF COURT – GENERALLY – whether the error is sufficient to warrant a grant of leave to appeal –whether the applicant would be substantially prejudiced by the error

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – COSTS – whether the costs of the trial should be awarded on the indemnity basis

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118
Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 55F(3)(a)

Arnold Electrical & Data Installations P/L v Logan Area Group Apprenticeship/Traineeship Scheme Ltd [2008] QCA 100, applied

Continue reading Nichols v Curtis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Nichols v Curtis [2010] QCA 303
Case
[2010] QCA 303
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Nichols, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the District Court of Queensland, which dismissed her personal injury claim against the second respondent, Curtis. The primary judge had awarded damages of $47,618.10 to the applicant, rejecting her claim for past economic loss. The applicant argued that the primary judge erred in dismissing her claim for past economic loss, asserting that there was evidence of financial loss due to her impaired capacity for employment.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge correctly assessed the evidence regarding the applicant's past economic loss. The applicant contended that the primary judge erred in finding that there was no evidence of lost employment or rejection of specific or general types of work due to her injuries. The court considered whether the primary judge's conclusions on this matter were supported by the evidence and whether these conclusions justified the dismissal of the claim for past economic loss.

The court found that the primary judge erred in rejecting the applicant's claim for past economic loss. The court held that there was evidence indicating that the applicant's impaired capacity for employment resulted in financial loss. The court also concluded that the applicant had excluded certain categories of work in seeking employment, which was not adequately addressed by the primary judge. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and varied the judgment to include an award for past economic loss, increasing the total damages to $52,418.10. The court also ordered the second respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the appeal and the application for leave to appeal on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

Grant the application for leave to appeal, allow the appeal, and vary the judgment given in the District Court on 19 February 2010 by ordering that there be judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $52,418.10;1.

Vary the order made on 23 March 2010 by omitting from the order the words “to a maximum of $2,500”;2.

The second respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.3.

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.