Peak v Dunleavy

Case [2008] NSWDC 232


CITATION: Peak v Dunleavy [2008] NSWDC 232
HEARING DATE(S): 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 August 2008
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

10 October 2008
JURISDICTION: District Court Civil
JUDGMENT OF: Levy SC DCJ
DECISION: 1. I find the Defendant was negligent and I consequently enter a verdict for the Plaintiff in the agreed sum of $5,000,000.
2. I find contributory negligence on the Plaintiff’s part assessed at 35 per cent.
3. After apportionment for the Plaintiff’s contributory negligence I enter an interim Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $3,250,000 pending an assessment of the amount to be allowed for funds management charges prior to the entry of final judgment.
4. I order the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s costs.
CATCHWORDS: Negligence – motor vehicle collision – Plaintiff unable to give evidence – police investigation did not reveal point of impact in the collision – analysis of relevant events from limited data to determine the liability issues. - Contributory negligence – finding and apportionment dependent on evaluation of facts and circumstances. - Damages – agreed sum of $5,000,000 before apportionment – funds management charges to be assessed.
LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents Compensation Act (NSW) 1999: s 138
CASES CITED: Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst [1940] 64 CLR 538
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1956) AC 613
Bradshaw v McEwan Pty Ltd (HCA, 1952, unreported)
Chappel v Hart [1998] 195 CLR 232
Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486
Davies v Swan Motor Co. Ltd [1949] 2 KB 291
Duyvelshaff v Cathcart & Ritchie Ltd (1973) 1 ALR 125 at 138
Evans v Lindsay [2006] NSWCA 354
Fox v Percy [2003] 214 CLR 118
Jones v Dunkel [1958-1959] 101 CLR 298
Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Manley v Alexander (2005) 80 ALJR 413
March v E. & M.H Stramare Pty Limited [1990-1991] 171 CLR 506
R v Parker (1912) VLR 152
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Limited (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
TNT Management Pty Ltd v Brooks (1979) 53 ALJR 267
PARTIES: Rachelle Suzanne Peak by her Tutor Doreen Peak
Leonie Dunleavy
FILE NUMBER(S): 2280 of 2006
COUNSEL: Mr RS McIlwaine SC and Mr CP Locke (Plaintiff)
Mr SG Campbell SC and Mr SE McCarthy (Defendant)
SOLICITORS: Velleley & Associates (Plaintiff)
McLachlan Chilton (Defendants)

Introduction

1. The Plaintiff, Rachelle Suzanne Peak has brought these proceedings through her mother Doreen Peak as Tutor. The Plaintiff claims damages for alleged negligence in respect of severe and disabling injuries she sustained in a motor vehicle collision that occurred on 10 June 2004 when her motor vehicle came into collision with a vehicle that was driven by the Defendant. At the trial liability was in strong contest.

Nature of the case

2. The Plaintiff sustained severe multi-trauma which included a fracture of the base of the skull that required decompressive craniotomy, a crushed chest wall, pelvic fractures and multiple other musculo-ligamentous injuries and lacerations. She has been left with severe multiple…

Continue reading Peak v Dunleavy

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Peak v Dunleavy [2008] NSWDC 232
Case
[2008] NSWDC 232
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Peak v Dunleavy, the plaintiff, Peak, sought damages from the defendant, Dunleavy, following a motor vehicle collision. Peak, unable to give evidence due to injuries sustained in the collision, relied on a police investigation that did not conclusively determine the point of impact. The case before the court required resolution of issues concerning negligence, contributory negligence, and the appropriate assessment of damages. The court was tasked with determining whether Dunleavy's actions constituted negligence, evaluating Peak's potential contributory negligence, and assessing the agreed sum of damages before apportionment, as well as the management charges for funds held pending final judgment.

The court first addressed the issue of negligence, considering the limited data available from the police investigation and the relevant events leading up to the collision. After thorough analysis, it found that Dunleavy was indeed negligent in their actions, leading to the collision. The court then turned to the issue of contributory negligence, evaluating Peak's role in the incident. It concluded that Peak was 35% contributory negligent, thereby reducing the total damages owed by Dunleavy. Given the agreed sum of damages before apportionment was $5,000,000, the court apportionment resulted in an interim judgment for Peak of $3,250,000, pending assessment of funds management charges before final judgment. The court also ordered Dunleavy to pay Peak's costs.

In summary, the court found Dunleavy liable for negligence, assessed Peak's contributory negligence at 35%, and ordered an interim judgment of $3,250,000 pending further assessment of funds management charges. Additionally, the court ruled that Dunleavy must cover Peak's costs. These findings and orders will be subject to final adjustment pending the assessment of funds management charges.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I find the Defendant was negligent and I consequently enter a verdict for the Plaintiff in the agreed sum of $5,000,000. 2. I find contributory negligence on the Plaintiff's part assessed at 35 per cent. 3. After apportionment for the Plaintiff's contributory negligence I enter an interim Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $3,250,000 pending an assessment of the amount to be allowed for funds management charges prior to the entry of final judgment. 4. I order the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff's 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.