Legal Research
Cases
Scattergood v Commonwealth

Scattergood v Commonwealth

Case [2022] TASSC 21 13 April 2022

Type to search within this case.

[2022] TASSC 21

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Scattergood v Commonwealth [2022] TASSC 21

PARTIES:  SCATTERGOOD, Sarah Jane
  v
  COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

FILE NO:  466/2019
DELIVERED ON:  13 April 2022
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  19, 20, 22 October, 9 November 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Damages – Particular awards of general damages – Tasmania – Whiplash injury and adjustment disorder with depressed mood – Public servant aged 46 at accident, 50 at trial – Award of $100,000 general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

Aust Dig Damages [1173]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  B R McTaggart SC, A Gaggin
             Defendant:  T D Cox
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Murdoch Clarke
             Defendant:  HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

Judgment Number: [2022] TASSC 21
Number of paragraphs: 176

Serial No 21/2022
File No 466/2019

SARAH JANE SCATTERGOOD v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

13 April 2022

This is an assessment of damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff, Sarah Scattergood, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 28 February 2018. On that day she was a passenger in the front seat of a vehicle that was being driven by her husband when he had to stop suddenly and a following vehicle collided with the rear of his vehicle. The driver of the other vehicle, Major Graham Wren, was an employee of the Commonwealth of Australia. Judgment has been entered for the plaintiff against the Commonwealth for damages to be assessed.
It is common ground that the plaintiff should recover general damages for her pain and suffering and loss of amenities, as well as damages for the past impairment of her earning capacity, future loss of earnings, loss of superannuation benefits, and various forms of future expenditure. However there are many matters of dispute relating to the quantum of the plaintiff's damages. The defendant contends that her complaints of medical symptoms are exaggerated, that her symptoms were substantially contributed to by a second incident, that she had pre-existing medical conditions that would have deteriorated in any event if she had not been injured, and that she failed to take various steps to mitigate her damage. The defendant relies on ss 34 and 35 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 and contends that it did not owe her a duty to prevent mental harm, and that her mental harm does not amount to a recognised psychiatric illness and therefore must be ignored in assessing damages for economic loss.
At the trial the plaintiff called five expert witnesses – a consultant physician (Dr Gorman), an orthopaedic surgeon (Mr Doig), the plaintiff's general practitioner (Dr Macrossan), a psychiatrist (Dr Evenhuis), and an occupational therapist (Ms Richards). The defendant did not call any expert witnesses. The only lay witnesses were the plaintiff, her husband, Major Wren, and a private investigator engaged by the Commonwealth, Mr Smith.

Background

The plaintiff was born in 1971. She was 46 years old at the time of the accident and is now 50…

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 Scattergood v Commonwealth

Details

AGLC: Scattergood v Commonwealth [2022] TASSC 21
Case: [2022] TASSC 21
Decision Date: 13 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Scattergood v Commonwealth, the plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained during an incident involving a government vehicle while on duty. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the quantum of general damages, considering the plaintiff's whiplash injury and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The plaintiff, a public servant, was 46 years old at the time of the accident and 50 at the time of the trial.

The central legal issues revolved around the appropriate assessment of general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities in the context of the plaintiff's injuries. Given the plaintiff's age at the time of the accident and the nature of the injuries, the court had to consider how these factors should influence the award. The court also had to balance the severity and impact of the plaintiff's injuries against the societal norms and expectations regarding compensation for such injuries.

The High Court deliberated on the extent to which the plaintiff's injuries affected her quality of life and her ability to enjoy life's pleasures. The court noted the severity of the plaintiff's whiplash injury and the significant impact it had on her daily life, compounded by the adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Ultimately, the court awarded $100,000 in general damages, reflecting a comprehensive assessment of the plaintiff's pain, suffering, and loss of amenities. This decision provides a benchmark for similar claims involving public servants in Tasmania.

Orders