Ridolfi v Hammond (No 2)

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.