P v R

Case [2010] QSC 139


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

P v R [2010] QSC 139

PARTIES:

P
(plaintiff)
v
R
(defendant)

FILE NO:

BS 2593 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

6 May 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 April 2010

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDER:

1.   There will be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $439,937.04.

2.   I will hear further submissions as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES –GENERAL PRINCIPLES – GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES - where plaintiff has claimed damages for personal injuries resulting from sexual assaults committed on her by the defendant when she was a child – where judgment had been entered for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed – assessment of quantum of damages to be awarded – whether the amount claimed is appropriate in all the circumstances

DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE AND AGGRAVATED DAMAGES - - where plaintiff has claimed damages for personal injuries resulting from sexual assaults committed on her by the defendant when she was a child – whether exemplary and aggravated damages should be awarded

K v G [2010] QSC 13, applied
Paten v Bale [1999] QSC 265, distinguished
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons (1966) 117 CLR 118, cited

COUNSEL:

C Heyworth-Smith for the plaintiff
No appearance for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Murphy Schmidt Solicitors for the plaintiff

  1. The plaintiff has claimed damages for personal injuries resulting from sexual assaults committed on her by the defendant.  The proceeding was commenced by claim and statement of claim filed on 11 March 2009.  Judgment was entered for the plaintiff on 22 December 2009, with damages to be assessed.  The hearing before me, at which the defendant did not appear, was for assessment of those damages.

  1. The plaintiff was born in March 1989.  The assaults occurred in 1997, when she was eight years old.  The plaintiff’s parents divorced in 1996 and the plaintiff thereafter had access with her father every second weekend and for half of every school holiday.  Between April and September 1997 she spent every Tuesday night at her father’s house and from September 1997 until December 1997 she spent either Tuesday or Thursday night at his house.  The defendant was, during this time, the plaintiff’s father’s housemate.  He had been a family friend for many years.

  1. The statement of claim particularises six instances of sexual assault by the defendant on the plaintiff between mid-1997 and December 1997.  In view of judgment having been entered against the defendant, it is appropriate to take these matters pleaded in the statement of claim as being not in issue. 

  1. The first three of the six pleaded incidents followed the same course, namely the plaintiff was in bed, the defendant entered her room, she pretended to be asleep, the defendant would pull down her pyjamas or boxer shorts and either put his index finger into her vagina or touch her vagina with his index finger, after which he would pull her pyjamas or…

Continue reading P v R

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
P v R [2010] QSC 139
Case
[2010] QSC 139
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of P v R, the plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of sexual assaults committed by the defendant during her childhood. The court had already entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff, with damages to be assessed. The primary issues before the court were the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded, and whether exemplary, punitive, or aggravated damages should be considered.

The court considered the extent and nature of the injuries, the impact on the plaintiff's life, and the defendant's culpability. The plaintiff presented evidence of significant psychological harm and a profound impact on her personal and professional life. The court took into account the severity of the assaults, the long-term effects on the plaintiff, and the need for both general and special damages. After thorough deliberation, the court determined that the amount claimed by the plaintiff was appropriate, considering all the circumstances. Additionally, the court deliberated on the applicability of exemplary, punitive, and aggravated damages but ultimately decided against awarding them.

The court awarded the plaintiff $439,937.04 in damages, encompassing both general and special components. The court further directed that it would hear further submissions regarding the costs associated with the case. This decision underscores the importance of considering both the quantifiable and intangible impacts of sexual assault when determining appropriate compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. There will be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $439,937.04.

2. I will hear further submissions as to costs.

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.