SANCI v Mensink - [2005] WADC 208

SANCI -v- MENSINK [2005] WADC 208

Last Update: 16/11/2005

SANCI -v- MENSINK [2005] WADC 208
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WADC 208
Case No:	CIV:3430/2002	Heard:	26-27 APRIL, 27 JULY 2005
Coram:	MACKNAY DCJ	Delivered:	09/11/2005
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiff entitled to judgment for $184,060
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	SONIA ANN SANCI PAMELA MAY MENSINK
Catchwords:	Damages Personal injury Assessment Plaintiff 37 year old female wardrobe assistant at time of accident Soft tissue and ligamentous injury to degenerate cervical spine Total award of $184.060
Legislation:	Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA) s3C
Case References:	Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538 Kandic v Kandic, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 5208; 20 December 1996 Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164 Belous v Willetts [1970] VR 45 British and Colonial Land Association v Foster & Robbins (1888) TLR 574 Cayron v Russell (1897) 23 VLR 399 Christie v Christie (1873) LR8 Ch App 499 Davy v Garrett (1877) 7 Ch D 473 Fisher v Owen (1878) 8 Ch D 645 Lawson v Flavel [2001] WASCA 272 Legal Practice Board v Said, unreported, SCt of WA; Library No BC9402017; 31 October 1994 Lumb v Beaumont [1884] 27 Ch D 35 Majchowicz v Joyce Corporation Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980405A; 23 July 1998 Meckiff v Simpson (1968) VR 62 Pihler v Genidi [2001] WADC 74 Rossage v Rossage [1960] 1 All ER 600 Southgate v Waterford (1990) 21 NSWLR 427 Squires Transport Pty Ltd v Turnor [2004] WASCA 245 Tomkinson v South Eastern Railway Company (1887) 35 Ch D 675 Turquand & Capital & Countries Bank v Fearon (1879) 4 QBD 280 Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158 Wylde v 'Arriaza, FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970359; 23 July 1997

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : SANCI -v- MENSINK [2005] WADC 208 CORAM : MACKNAY DCJ HEARD : 26-27 APRIL, 27 JULY 2005 DELIVERED : 9 NOVEMBER 2005 FILE NO/S : CIV 3430 of 2002 BETWEEN : SONIA ANN SANCI

Plaintiff

AND

PAMELA MAY MENSINK

Defendant

Catchwords:

Damages - Personal injury - Assessment - Plaintiff 37 year old female wardrobe assistant at time of accident - Soft tissue and ligamentous injury to degenerate cervical spine - Total award of $184.060

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA) s3C

Result:

Plaintiff entitled to judgment for $184,060

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr K S Pratt

Defendant : Mr M A McAuliffe

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Trewin Norman & Co

Defendant : Dibbs Barker Gosling

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

Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538
Kandic v Kandic, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 5208; 20 December 1996
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990)…

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 SANCI v Mensink

Details

AGLC: SANCI v MENSINK [2005] WADC 208
Case: [2005] WADC 208
Decision Date: 9 NOVEMBER 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of SANCI v Mensink, the plaintiff, a 37-year-old female wardrobe assistant, sought damages for a personal injury sustained in an accident. The injury in question involved a soft tissue and ligamentous injury to the plaintiff’s degenerate cervical spine. The matter was brought before the court to determine the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded to the plaintiff. The defendant was not identified in the summary provided, but it is understood that the court was required to assess the extent of the plaintiff's injuries, the impact on her quality of life, and the appropriate financial compensation to cover past and future losses.

The court was tasked with considering the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, the impact of those injuries on her life, and the appropriate quantification of damages. The plaintiff argued that her injuries were significant and that the compensation should reflect the full extent of her suffering and the ongoing impact on her daily life. The defendant, on the other hand, likely contested the extent of the injuries or the level of compensation claimed. The court needed to weigh the evidence and arguments from both parties to arrive at a just and equitable outcome.

The court meticulously reviewed the medical evidence and testimony regarding the plaintiff's injuries and their impact. It took into account the plaintiff's pre-existing condition of a degenerate cervical spine and how the accident exacerbated it. The court considered the plaintiff's testimony about her pain, the limitations on her activities, and the effect on her employment and overall quality of life. After a thorough analysis, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to a total award of $184,060 to compensate for her injuries, pain, suffering, and the impact on her life. This amount was considered appropriate based on the evidence presented and the legal principles governing personal injury claims in Australia.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the sum of $184,060. This amount represented the total compensation for the plaintiff's personal injuries, including past and future damages. The court's decision reflected a careful consideration of the plaintiff's medical condition, the impact of the accident, and the appropriate level of compensation to address her losses.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff entitled to judgment for $184,060

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.