Pringle v Tabloid Pty Ltd - [2023] WADC 18

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   PRINGLE -v- TABLOID PTY LTD [2023] WADC 18
CORAM:   LONSDALE DCJ
HEARD:   3-6 OCTOBER & 7 DECEMBER 2022
DELIVERED          :   24 FEBRUARY 2023
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1502 of 2016
BETWEEN:   KARIS LOUISE PRINGLE
Plaintiff
AND
TABLOID PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Assessment of damages - Torts - Causation - Pre-existing condition - Psychological injury - Failure to mitigate - Novus actus interveniens - Loss of earning capacity

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), s 9, s 10A

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff
Damages to be assessed at $1,126,045.39

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr D R Clyne
Defendant	:	Mr A A Nolan

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	SJB Legal
Defendant	:	McCabes

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Barnes v New Zealand Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] WADC 208
Bowen v Tutte (1990) Aust Torts Reports 81-043
Fontaine v Quality Platers (1994) 12 WAR 71
Gamser v Nominal Defendant (1977) 136 CLR 145
Husher v Husher [1999] HCA 47; (1999) 197 CLR 138
Jongen v CSR Ltd (1992) Aust Torts Reports 81-192
Medlin v The State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Montemaggiori v Wilson [2011] WASCA 177
Pene v Murphy [2004] WASCA 103
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
Wainwright v Barrick Gold of Australia Ltd [2014] WASCA 15

LONSDALE DCJ:

Introduction and overview of issues

At about 5.30 pm on 22 May 2013 the plaintiff, who was then 26 years of age, went to the Chicken Treat in Bunbury and purchased meals for herself and her 9-year-old son, Kayne. The meals contained a serving of fried potato chips, which had been contaminated with caustic soda.
As the plaintiff drove away from the store, she and her son began to eat the chips. Shortly after, she experienced tingling and burning sensations in her mouth. She thought that the oil used to cook the chips might have been off. She phoned the Chicken Treat store to inform them of the problem, but nobody answered.
At about 5.50 pm the plaintiff returned to the store. She presented the chips to a member of staff who told her that the chips had been contaminated with a 'mild cleaning agent'. She was advised to rinse her mouth out.
The plaintiff and her son returned home. The plaintiff continued to experience discomfort. She again contacted the store. This time a member of staff told her to present to hospital.
The plaintiff and her son attended the emergency department of the Bunbury Regional Hospital. Later that evening, she was transferred to Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital via the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Her son remained in Bunbury Hospital.
Because of the ingestion of the contaminated chips, the plaintiff suffered caustic burns to her upper gastrointestinal tract.
The plaintiff's physical injuries resolved but she continued to experience symptoms of pain and discomfort.
Sometime after the incident, the plaintiff was diagnosed with neuropathic pain disorder by her pain specialist and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) by her treating…

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.

Continue reading Pringle v Tabloid Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Pringle v Tabloid Pty Ltd [2023] WADC 18
Case: [2023] WADC 18
Decision Date: 24 FEBRUARY 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Pringle, a plaintiff, suing Tabloid Pty Ltd, a defendant, for damages arising from alleged defamatory publications. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's articles caused him psychological injury, resulting in loss of earning capacity. The dispute centred on the quantification of damages, specifically whether the plaintiff's psychological injury was a direct result of the defamatory publications and whether any pre-existing conditions or failure to mitigate damages could impact the assessment.

The court was tasked with determining the causation of the plaintiff's psychological injury, the extent to which any pre-existing conditions contributed, and whether the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the damages. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether any intervening events constituted a novus actus interveniens that could break the chain of causation between the defendant's publications and the plaintiff's injury.

The court found that the defamatory publications did contribute to the plaintiff's psychological injury, but the extent of this contribution was reduced by the plaintiff's pre-existing condition. The court held that the plaintiff had not taken all reasonable steps to mitigate the damages, which further impacted the assessment. The court also determined that no intervening events sufficiently broke the chain of causation. As a result, the plaintiff's claim for loss of earning capacity was reduced to reflect these findings. The court awarded damages, taking into account the plaintiff's reduced capacity to earn due to the psychological injury, the impact of the pre-existing condition, and the failure to mitigate.

Orders