Saul v Machalek

Case [2020] QDC 69

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Saul v Machalek & Anor [2020] QDC 69

PARTIES:

KAIN JASON SAUL

(Plaintiff)

v

PAUL MACHALEK

(First Defendant)

and

ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED

ACN 000 122 850

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D95/2018

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Southport

DELIVERED ON:

28 April 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

14 and 15 August 2019 (Southport), 31 October 2019 (Brisbane), short further written submissions received from defendants on 19 December 2019.

JUDGE:

Muir DCJ

ORDER:

   [1]      Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $104,791.95.

   [2]      I will hear the parties as to costs and to that end I direct that any submissions in respect of costs, or alternatively a proposed draft order if the parties are agreed, be emailed to my associate by 4pm on 19 May 2020.

CATCHWORDS:

PERSONAL INJURIES - DAMAGES – QUANTUM  – where plaintiff rehabilitating from prior injury at time of accident – whether the accident delayed the plaintiff’s return to work – whether the accident caused the plaintiff to be demoted – where plaintiff claimed general damages, past economic loss with interest, loss of superannuation benefits, future economic loss (and future superannuation), special damages with interest and future medical expenses

PERSONAL INJURIES – MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT – CAUSATION  – where plaintiff rehabilitating from prior injury at time of accident – whether injury attributable to the accident – where plaintiff’s evidence of symptoms conflicts with other evidence – where multiple inferences as to causality open on the expert evidence

LEGISLATION:

Civil Liability Act2003 (Qld), Sections 11, 12, 55

Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld). Sections 9, 4, Sch 4

CASES CITED:

Allianz v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312.

Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538.

Australian Iron & Steel Ltd v Connell (1959) 102 CLR 522.

Beaven v Wagner Industrial Services Pty Ltd [2018] 2 Qd R 542.

Bell v Mastermyne Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 331.

Camden v McKenzie [2008] 1 Qd R 39.

Edington v Board of Trustees of the State of Public Superannuation Scheme [2016] QCA 247.

EMI (Australia) Ltd v Bes (1972) NSWLR 238.

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118.

Gordon v RACQ [2015] QDC 313.

Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340.

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298.

Kovan v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 51.

March v E.& MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1990- 1991) 171 CLR 506.

Metro North Hospital and Health Service v Pierce [2018] NSWCA 11.

New South Wales v Hunt (2014) NSWCA 47.

Obstoj v Van Der Loos (W.203 of 1995, 13 April 1987, unreported)

Onassis & Calogeropoulos v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Report 403.

Pacific Coal Pty Ltd v Gaudry [1996] QCA 525.

Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642.

Reitano v Shearer & Anor [2014] QCA 336.

Robert Bax & Associates v Cavenhan Pty Ltd (2013) 1 Qd R 476.

Todorovic v Waller (1981) 150 CLR 420

Continue reading Saul v Machalek

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Saul v Machalek [2020] QDC 69
Case
[2020] QDC 69
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Saul, sued the defendant, Machalek, for damages resulting from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff, who was in the process of recovering from a prior injury at the time of the accident, claimed that the incident delayed his return to work and led to his demotion. Saul sought general damages, past economic loss with interest, loss of superannuation benefits, future economic loss (including future superannuation), special damages with interest, and future medical expenses. The central legal issues revolved around whether the accident caused the plaintiff's claimed injuries and whether these injuries were attributable to the accident. The court had to weigh the plaintiff's conflicting evidence of symptoms against other evidence and consider multiple inferences from expert testimonies regarding causality.

The court concluded that the plaintiff's injuries were indeed caused by the accident, despite discrepancies in his evidence and conflicting expert opinions. It was determined that the accident did delay the plaintiff's return to work and contributed to his demotion. The court assessed the plaintiff's claims for general damages, economic losses, and future expenses. It found that the plaintiff was entitled to damages, which included general damages, past economic loss with interest, loss of superannuation benefits, future economic loss (including future superannuation), special damages with interest, and future medical expenses. The court calculated the total amount of damages to be awarded and directed the parties to submit their views on costs by a specified date.

The court rendered a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, awarding $104,791.95 in damages. The court also instructed the parties to exchange submissions or a draft order regarding costs by 4pm on 19 May 2020. This detailed assessment and the final judgment provided clarity on the plaintiff's claims and the extent of damages attributable to the motor vehicle accident.

Orders

Orders of the court

[1] Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $104,791.95.

[2] I will hear the parties as to costs and to that end I direct that any submissions in respect of costs, or alternatively a proposed draft order if the parties are agreed, be emailed to my associate by 4pm on 19 May 2020.

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.