Phillips v MCG Group Pty Ltd

Case [2013] QCA 83

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Phillips v MCG Group Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 83

PARTIES:

LAWRENCE WILLIAM PHILLIPS
(appellant)
v
MCG GROUP PTY LTD
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5567 of 2012
SC No 11924 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 April 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 November 2012

JUDGES:

Fraser and White JJA and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGE – PAIN AND SUFFERING – where appellant suffered spinal injury while working for respondent as scraper driver on mine site – where respondent accepted liability – where appellant had prior spinal injury in different part of lumbar spine to latter injury – where parties in dispute about how much pain attributable to latter injury – whether error is identifiable in primary judge’s assessment of general damages

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – where appellant had no residual earning capacity after injury – where parties in dispute about what employment the appellant would otherwise have had between injury and judgment – whether error is identifiable in primary judge’s assessment of damages for loss of earning capacity, such as double discounting

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – where parties in dispute about what employment the appellant would have otherwise had for the remainder of his working life – where parties in dispute about date appellant would otherwise have retired – whether error is identifiable in primary judge’s assessment of damages for loss of future earning capacity

Arthur Robinson (Grafton) Ltd v Carter (1968) 122 CLR 649; [1968] HCA 9, considered
Bell v Mastermyne Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 331, considered
Cameron v Foster [2010] QSC 372, considered
Commonwealth of Australia v Elliott [2004] NSWCA 360, cited
Craddock v Anglo Coal (Moranbah North Management) Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 133, considered
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v St Helens Farm (ACT) Pty Ltd (1981) 146 CLR 336; [1981] HCA 4, cited
Hopkins v WorkCover Queensland[2004] QCA 155, considered
Koven v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 51, considered
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638; [1990] HCA 20, considered
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1; [1995] HCA 5, cited
Miller v Jennings (1954) 92 CLR 190; [1954] HCA 65, cited
Minchin v Public Curator of Queensland [1965] ALR 91, cited
Montemaggiori v Wilson [2011] WASCA 177, cited
Newell v Lucas [1964-5] NSWR 1597, considered

Continue reading Phillips v MCG Group Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Phillips v MCG Group Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 83
Case
[2013] QCA 83
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved the appellant, who suffered a spinal injury while working for the respondent as a scraper driver on a mine site. The respondent accepted liability for the injury. The parties were in dispute regarding the extent to which the appellant's pain and suffering was attributable to the latter injury, as the appellant had a prior spinal injury in a different part of the lumbar spine. Additionally, the parties contested the assessment of damages for loss of earning capacity, including the appropriate employment the appellant would have had post-injury and the date of retirement. The court was tasked with determining whether any identifiable error existed in the primary judge's assessment of the general damages and loss of earning capacity.

The legal issues before the court involved the measure and remoteness of damages in tort actions for personal injuries. Specifically, the court needed to address the correct apportionment of pain and suffering attributable to the latest injury, the appropriate employment and retirement date for calculating loss of future earning capacity, and whether any double discounting errors were present in the primary judge's assessment. The court also had to consider if any other errors were identifiable in the primary judge's assessment of damages.

The court found that the primary judge had not erred in his assessment of the appellant's damages. Regarding the pain and suffering, the court held that there was no identifiable error in the primary judge's assessment, as he had adequately considered the appellant's pre-existing injury and apportioned the pain and suffering attributable to the latest injury. Concerning the loss of earning capacity, the court concluded that there was no double discounting error and that the primary judge had appropriately assessed the employment the appellant would have had post-injury and the retirement date. The court found no other identifiable errors in the primary judge's assessment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court held that the primary judge's assessment of damages was accurate and that no errors were identifiable in the assessment of pain and suffering or loss of earning capacity.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with 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.