Norman v Hird - [2025] QDC 44

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Norman v Hird and Anor [2025] QDC 44

PARTIES:

TALEISHA ROSE NORMAN
(plaintiff)

v

JENNIFER NICOLE HIRD
(first defendant)

and

ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
(ABN 15 000 122 850)
(second defendant)

FILE NO.:

BD 2655/22

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil

DELIVERED ON:

31 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18, 19 and 28 March 2025 (written submissions dated 24 and 26 March 2025)

JUDGE:

Rosengren DCJ

ORDER:

JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUM OF $103,198

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL DAMAGES – where the plaintiff suffered physical injury in a motor vehicle accident – where liability is admitted by the defendants – whether the plaintiff was a witness of credit – where damages are assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – where there is a dispute as to the consequences of the injuries caused by the accident –where the parties are in dispute as to the appropriate level of ISV

DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY – where the effect on employment is in issue – the appropriate method of assessing loss of earning capacity

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 51, 55, 60(1)(a)
Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld)

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
New South Wales v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133
Nilon v Bezzina [1988] 2 Qd R 420
Nucifora v AAI Limited [2013] QSC 338
Reardon-Smith v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2007] QCA 211
Sutton v Hunter & Anor [2022] QCA 208
Yammine v Kalwy [1979] 2 NSWLR 151

COUNSEL:
C Fitzpatrick for the plaintiff
G O’Driscoll for the defendants

SOLICITORS:
Richardson & Lyons for the plaintiff
Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the defendants

Introduction

In August 2020, the plaintiff and the first defendant were involved in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff claims she sustained injuries to her neck and lower back.
In October 2022, she commenced this proceeding against the defendants for damages and other orders. Liability has been admitted, but quantum remains in dispute.
The assessment is governed by the provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (‘the Act’) and the Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld) (‘the Regulation’).
A few weeks ago the trial was heard over two days. The plaintiff and three other lay witnesses gave evidence. Expert evidence was given by two orthopaedic surgeons, namely Drs Labrom and Sharwood. Detailed written submissions have been provided by the parties. They were supplemented with oral submissions.
It is the plaintiff’s case that she continues to experience symptoms from the soft-tissue injuries to her cervical and lumbar spines that she sustained in the accident. Damages are claimed in the sum of approximately $180,000.
On the other hand the defendants contend that the damages award should be limited to $7,700. In the further amended defence, it is pleaded that:

(i) While the plaintiff suffered a cervical spine injury in the accident,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Norman v Hird

Details

AGLC: Norman v Hird [2025] QDC 44
Case: [2025] QDC 44
Decision Date: 31 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Norman v Hird was heard in a relevant Queensland court, where the plaintiff, Norman, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendants admitted liability for the accident, and the case proceeded to focus on the assessment of damages under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). Norman claimed damages for general damages, loss of earning capacity, and other related claims. The central legal issue revolved around the appropriate level of general damages to be awarded, considering the extent and impact of the injuries sustained. Additionally, there was a dispute between the parties concerning the correct method of assessing Norman's loss of earning capacity. The court needed to determine the credibility of Norman as a witness and the appropriate factors to consider in assessing his damages.

The court approached the issue of general damages by first assessing Norman's credibility as a witness. It was found that Norman was a reliable and credible witness, whose testimony could be relied upon in determining the extent of his injuries and their impact. The court then proceeded to consider the appropriate level of general damages, taking into account the nature and severity of Norman's injuries, their impact on his daily life, and the duration of the injuries. The court also examined the dispute over the appropriate method of assessing Norman's loss of earning capacity. After considering the evidence presented by both parties, the court determined that the most appropriate method of assessing loss of earning capacity was to compare Norman's earning capacity before and after the accident.

The court awarded Norman damages in the sum of $103,198, which included both general damages and damages for loss of earning capacity. The court found that the appropriate level of general damages was reflective of the significant impact the injuries had on Norman's life, while the loss of earning capacity was assessed based on the evidence provided by both parties. The court concluded that the total amount awarded adequately compensated Norman for his injuries and losses resulting from the motor vehicle accident. The judgment provided clarity on the assessment of damages in cases involving personal injuries, and the appropriate methods for evaluating loss of earning capacity.

Orders

Orders of the court

JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUM OF $103,198

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.

CITATION:	Norman v Hird and Anor [2025] QDC 44
PARTIES:	TALEISHA ROSE NORMAN (plaintiff) v JENNIFER NICOLE HIRD (first defendant) and ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED (ABN 15 000 122 850) (second defendant)
FILE NO.:	BD 2655/22
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Civil
DELIVERED ON:	31 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18, 19 and 28 March 2025 (written submissions dated 24 and 26 March 2025)
JUDGE:	Rosengren DCJ
ORDER:	JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUM OF $103,198
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL DAMAGES – where the plaintiff suffered physical injury in a motor vehicle accident – where liability is admitted by the defendants – whether the plaintiff was a witness of credit – where damages are assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – where there is a dispute as to the consequences of the injuries caused by the accident –where the parties are in dispute as to the appropriate level of ISV DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY – where the effect on employment is in issue – the appropriate method of assessing loss of earning capacity Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 51, 55, 60(1)(a) Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld) Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312 Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 New South Wales v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133 Nilon v Bezzina [1988] 2 Qd R 420 Nucifora v AAI Limited [2013] QSC 338 Reardon-Smith v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2007] QCA 211 Sutton v Hunter & Anor [2022] QCA 208 Yammine v Kalwy [1979] 2 NSWLR 151
COUNSEL:	C Fitzpatrick for the plaintiff G O’Driscoll for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Richardson & Lyons for the plaintiff Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the defendants