Ridolfi v Hammond (No 2)

Case [2012] NSWCA 67


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ridolfi v Hammond (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 67
Hearing dates:On written submissions
Decision date: 04 April 2012
Before: Beazley JA at 1
Campbell JA at 2
Sackville AJA at 3
Decision:

1. Order that judgment be entered for the appellant in the sum of $243,406.62.

2. Order the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

[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 - attendent care services - Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 s 128 - whether appellant satisfied statutory requirement that services must be provided for at least 6 hours per week.
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Legislation Amendment Act 2008
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Cases Cited: Hill v Forrester [2010] NSWCA 170
Miller v Galderisi [2009] NSWCA 353
Ridolfi v Hammond [2012] NSWCA 3
Category:Consequential orders
Parties: George Ridolfi (Appellant)
Lisa-Maree Hammond (Respondent)
Representation: Ms S Norton SC and Ms M Fraser (Appellant)
Mr R Bartlett SC and Mr W Fitzsimmons (Respondent)
Brydens Law Office (Appellant)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2010/81646
 Decision under appeal 
Date of Decision:
2010-03-12 00:00:00
Before:
Gibb DCJ
File Number(s):
2201 of 2004

Judgment

  1. BEAZLEY JA: I agree with the reasons and orders of Sackville AJA.

  1. CAMPBELL JA: I agree with Sackville AJA.

  1. SACKVILLE AJA: In a judgment delivered on 23 February 2012, the Court made the following orders:

"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 the reasoning in 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 [Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 ('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."

Ridolfi v Hammond [2012] NSWCA 3 ("Principal Judgment").

  1. The figure of $17,500 as damages for past loss of earnings (or, more accurately, past loss of earning capacity) was based on a finding in the Principal Judgment (at [157]) that the appellant was…

Continue reading Ridolfi v Hammond (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ridolfi v Hammond (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 67
Case
[2012] NSWCA 67
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Ridolfi v Hammond (No 2)*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal concerning damages for attendant care services. The appellant, Mr Ridolfi, sought to recover costs for such services under section 128 of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW). The central dispute revolved around whether the appellant had satisfied the statutory threshold that the services must have been provided for at least six hours per week.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was the interpretation and application of section 128 of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999*. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the evidence presented by the appellant established that the attendant care services provided to him met the minimum requirement of six hours per week, as stipulated by the Act, to qualify for compensation.

The Court analysed the evidence concerning the provision of attendant care services. It was found that while the appellant had provided evidence of the services received, the documentation and testimony did not definitively demonstrate that the six-hour per week threshold had been met consistently. The Court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to section 128, emphasizing the need for clear and cogent evidence to satisfy the statutory requirement. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ordering that judgment be entered for the appellant in the sum of $243,406.62 and that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Order that judgment be entered for the appellant in the sum of $243,406.62.

2. Order the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

[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.