Piekuta by her tutor Piekuta v Saab - [2014] NSWSC 674

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Piekuta by her tutor Piekuta v Saab [2014] NSWSC 674
Hearing dates: 8 May 2014
Decision date: 28 May 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
See paragraphs 22 and 23

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for approval of settlement of personal injury proceedings - whether proposed settlement is in the interests of the plaintiff
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 76, 77
Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995 (NSW), ss 22, 23, 24, 25
Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Fisher by her tutor Fisher v Marin [2008] NSWSC 1357
Permanent Trustee v Mills [2007] NSWSC 336; (2007) 71 NSWLR 1
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Elizabeth Piekuta (Plaintiff)
Edwina Saab (First Defendant)
Majid Saab (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
A J Stone (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Stacks Goudkamp (Plaintiff)
Spark Helmore (Defendants)

File Number(s): 10/231680

Judgment

Before the Court is an application for approval of a settlement of litigation in which the plaintiff is a minor who sued by her mother as tutor. The application is brought pursuant to section 76 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ("the Act"), which is as follows:

76 Settlement of proceedings commenced by or on behalf of, or against, person under legal incapacity

(1) This section applies to proceedings commenced by or on behalf of, or against, any of the following persons:

(a) a person under legal incapacity,

(b) a person who, during the course of the proceedings, becomes a person under legal incapacity,

(c) a person whom the court finds, during the course of the proceedings, to be incapable of managing his or her own affairs.

(2) The court may make a finding referred to in subsection (1) (c) only on the basis of evidence given in the proceedings in which it is made, and such a finding has effect for the purpose only of those proceedings.

(3) Except with the approval of the court, there may not be:

(a) any compromise or settlement of any proceedings to which this section applies, or

(b) any acceptance of money paid into court in any such proceedings,

as regards a claim made by or on behalf of, or against, a person referred to in subsection (1).

(4) If an agreement for the compromise or settlement of any matter in dispute in any such proceedings is made by or on behalf of a person referred to in subsection (1), the court may approve or disapprove the agreement.

(5) An agreement disapproved by the court does not bind the person by whom or on whose behalf it was made.

(6) An agreement approved by the court binds the person by whom or on whose behalf it was made as if he or she were of full capacity and (if it was made by some other person on his or her behalf) as if that other person had made the agreement as his or her agent.

The…

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 Piekuta by her tutor Piekuta v Saab 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: [2014] NSWSC 674
Decision Date: 28 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Piekuta by her tutor Piekuta v Saab, the court was presented with an application for the approval of a settlement agreement reached in personal injury proceedings. The plaintiff, Piekuta, sought to finalise the matter with the defendant, Saab, through a settlement arrangement. The primary issue before the court was whether the proposed settlement was in the best interests of the plaintiff. The court had to consider the merits of the settlement, the potential for recovery, and the interests of justice in approving or rejecting the proposed agreement.

The court carefully analysed the evidence presented regarding the settlement. It considered the extent of the plaintiff's injuries, the costs associated with her treatment and rehabilitation, and the financial implications of the settlement. The court also took into account the risk and uncertainty associated with pursuing the case to trial and the potential outcomes that might be achieved. The primary focus was on ensuring that the settlement was fair and reasonable, and that it adequately compensated the plaintiff for her injuries.

After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that the proposed settlement was indeed in the best interests of the plaintiff. The settlement provided a fair and reasonable outcome, considering the plaintiff's injuries, the costs involved, and the potential risks of proceeding to trial. The court found that the settlement offered a balanced resolution that was consistent with the interests of justice. Accordingly, the court granted approval for the settlement to proceed.

The court ordered that the settlement agreement be approved and that the proceedings be finalised in accordance with the terms of the settlement. The court's decision provided certainty and closure for both parties, allowing the matter to be resolved in a manner that was fair and just.

Orders