Petrovic v Waterhouse Racing - [2007] NSWSC 740

CITATION: Petrovic v Waterhouse Racing & Anor [2007] NSWSC 740

HEARING DATE(S): 02/07/2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
2 July 2007

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1

DECISION: In each case award of damages and costs. Stay for 28 days on certain conditions.

CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES: - personal injury - supplementary judgment to [2007] NSWSC 508 - final orders

CASES CITED: Todorovic v Moussa (2001) 53 NSWLR 463
Storey & Keers Pty Ltd & Anor v Johnstone (1987) 9 NSWLR 446

PARTIES: Natalie Petrovic (plaintif - 20134/2004)
Ruzica Petrovic (plaintiff - 20132/2004)
Gai Waterhouse Racing Pty Ltd (1st defendant)
Australian Jockey Club (2nd defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20134/2004; 20132/2004

COUNSEL: P Semmler QC with R Royle (plaintiffs)
J Machonachie QC (defendants)

SOLICITORS: Vizzone Ruggero & Associates (plaintiffs)
Henry Davis York (1st defendant)
Riley Gray-Spencer (2nd defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HIDDEN J

Monday 2 July 2007

20134/04 Natalie Petrovic v Gai Waterhouse Racing Pty Limited & Australian Jockey Club
20132/04 Ruzica Petrovic v Gai Waterhouse Racing Pty Limited & Australian Jockey Club
JUDGMENT/ORDERS – Ex tempore

1 HIS HONOUR: I delivered a judgment in these matters on 19 June 2007 (NSWSC 508) and I sought counsel's assistance in calculating the damages to be awarded in accordance with my reasons to each of the plaintiffs. That assistance has now been provided and I am grateful for it. However, senior counsel for the plaintiffs raised an issue about two paragraphs of my judgment concerning the damages for each of the plaintiffs.

2 In paragraph 119, dealing with the case of Natalie Petrovic, I said:

I would allow an award for gratuitous assistance based on eight hours per week in the past and five hours per week in the future.

3 When I came to deal with Mrs Ruzica Petrovic's similar claim, I said at paragraph 187 that I saw no reason to depart from the allowance which I had made in her daughter's case. Again, that was elliptical, to say the least, and my intention was that future care would be on the basis of paid care. Again, I am also adopting the method of calculation set out…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Petrovic v Waterhouse Racing and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] NSWSC 740
Decision Date: 2 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Petrovic v Waterhouse Racing was an appeal concerning the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mr Petrovic, sought to appeal the amount of damages awarded to him by the trial judge, contending that the sum was inadequate.

The court was required to determine whether the amount of damages awarded to Mr Petrovic was appropriate, given the extent of his injuries and the impact those injuries had on his life. This involved examining the evidence presented at the trial, the trial judge's findings, and the principles of law that apply to the assessment of damages in personal injury cases. The court was also required to consider whether the trial judge had erred in his application of those principles.

The court found that the trial judge had made errors in his assessment of the damages, resulting in an inadequate award to Mr Petrovic. The court considered that the trial judge had failed to properly account for the impact of Mr Petrovic's injuries on his quality of life and had not adequately considered the long-term effects of those injuries. The court also found that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the medical evidence presented at the trial. As a result, the court allowed the appeal and ordered that supplementary judgment be entered in favour of Mr Petrovic, awarding him a higher amount of damages.

The final orders of the court included an award of damages to Mr Petrovic in the sum of $2,300,000, together with interest and costs. The court also ordered that the defendant pay Mr Petrovic's costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis. The court's decision provided guidance for future cases involving the assessment of damages for personal injury, highlighting the importance of properly considering the impact of injuries on a person's quality of life and the need for careful application of the relevant legal principles.

Orders