Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Ridolfi v Hammond [2012] NSWCA 3 Hearing dates: 22, 23 September 2011 Decision date: 23 February 2012 Before: Beazley JA at 1
Campbell JA at 2
Sackville AJA at 3Decision: 1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside orders 1, 2 and 3 made by Gibb DCJ on 12 March 2010.
3. Direct the appellant on or before 1 March 2012 to file written submissions, not exceeding ten pages in length, addressing the following issues:
(a) whether the appellant agrees with the figure of $17,500 in respect of past loss of earnings and, if not, the figure that is proposed;
(b) the quantum of damages for loss of future earning capacity, calculated in accordance with this judgment;
(c) the amounts, if any, that should be awarded by way of damages in respect of past and future attendant care services (including the question of whether the threshold requirements of s 128(3) of the MAC Act are satisfied); and
(d) costs.
4. Direct the respondent, on or before 12 March 2012, to file and serve written submissions, not exceeding ten pages in length, in reply.
5. The respondent, if otherwise qualified, to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act 1951.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: DAMAGES - motor vehicle accident - pre-existing degenerative spinal condition - whether primary Judge correct to find that the consequences of the pre-existing condition would have "subsumed" the consequences of the accident within eight years - whether primary Judge correct to find no causal relationship between accident and further degeneration of spinal condition. Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Civil Liability Legislation Amendment Act 2008
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999Cases Cited: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak [2009] HCA 48; 239 CLR 420
Graham v Baker [1961] HCA 48; 106 CLR 340
Insurance Australia Ltd v Helou [2008] NSWCA 240; 51 MVR 414
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 20; 169 CLR 638
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; 171 CLR 506
Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; 114 CLR 164
Seltsam Pty Ltd v Ghaleb [2005] NSWCA 208
Shorey v PT Ltd [2003] HCA 27; 77 ALJR 1104
Sretenovic v Reed [2009] NSWCA 208
Varga v Galea [2011] NSWCA 76
Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; 108 CLR 158
Zanner v Zanner [2010] NSWCA 343Category: Principal judgment Parties: George Ridolfi (Appellant)
Lisa-Maree Hammond (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Ms S Norton SC and Ms M Fraser (Appellant)
Mr R Bartlett SC and Mr W Fitzsimmons (Respondent)
Continue reading Ridolfi v Hammond
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ridolfi v Hammond [2012] NSWCA 3
- Case
- [2012] NSWCA 3
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the consequences of the plaintiff's pre-existing spinal condition would have "subsumed" the consequences of the accident within eight years, and whether the primary judge was correct in concluding there was no causal relationship between the accident and further degeneration of the plaintiff's spinal condition.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the original orders. The Court found that the primary judge had erred in their assessment of the causal link between the accident and the plaintiff's ongoing spinal degeneration. The Court directed the parties to file further written submissions on specific aspects of the damages calculation, including past and future loss of earnings, attendant care services, and costs, indicating a remittal for redetermination of these issues.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside orders 1, 2 and 3 made by Gibb DCJ on 12 March 2010.
3. Direct the appellant on or before 1 March 2012 to file written submissions, not exceeding ten pages in length, addressing the following issues:
(a) whether the appellant agrees with the figure of $17,500 in respect of past loss of earnings and, if not, the figure that is proposed;
(b) the quantum of damages for loss of future earning capacity, calculated in accordance with this judgment;
(c) the amounts, if any, that should be awarded by way of damages in respect of past and future attendant care services (including the question of whether the threshold requirements of s 128(3) of the MAC Act are satisfied); and
(d) costs.
4. Direct the respondent, on or before 12 March 2012, to file and serve written submissions, not exceeding ten pages in length, in reply.
5. The respondent, if otherwise qualified, to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act 1951.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.