District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: SE by her Tutor AH v Grech [2020] NSWDC 474 Hearing dates: 28 & 29 July 2020 Date of orders: 21 August 2020 Decision date: 21 August 2020 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson JC DCJ Decision: Orders:
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff for $0.
(2) Costs reserved, with liberty to apply.
(3) Exhibits retained until further order.
Catchwords: PERSONAL INJURY – assessment of damages
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ss 5E, 31
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 42.35
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) ss 92(1)(a), 126
Cases Cited: Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 17
Dank v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 295
Langmaid v Dobsons Vegetable Machinery Pty Ltd [2014] TASFC 6
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Stitz v Manpower Services & Anor [2011] QSC 268
South Western Sydney Local Health District v Gould [2018] NSWCA 69
Texts Cited: The Honourable Justice Ipp, ‘Problems with Fact-Finding’, (2006) 80 Australian Law Journal 667
Category: Principal judgment Parties: SE by her tutor AH(Plaintiff)
Alesha Ann Grech (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr Jobson(Plaintiff)
Mr A J J Renshaw and Mr J Nottle (Defendant)
Plaintiff: Marcel Joukhador (Harrow Legal)
Defendant: Giuseppe Mancuso (Hall & Wilcox Lawyers)
File Number(s): 2019/80873 Publication restriction: Plaintiff’s name anonymised
Judgment
The plaintiff’s claim for damages
-
The plaintiff, by statement of claim filed on 15 May 2019, brings proceedings for damages for injuries she suffered in a motor vehicle accident on 19 December 2015. SE, whose name has been anonymised for reasons set out in more detail below is twelve years old, and thus brings these proceedings through a tutor, her mother, pursuant to a Certificate of Exemption issued under s 92(1)(a) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW).
-
The statement of claim sets out that the plaintiff suffered injury whilst a passenger in a vehicle which at the time of the accident was stationary in traffic on Bay Street in Brighton-le-Sands, Sydney, New South Wales. This vehicle was struck from the rear by the defendant’s car with such force that the plaintiff and her fellow passengers were impacted as their own vehicle rammed forward into the vehicle in front. The ensuing five-car pile-up created a major traffic incident and the police and ambulance were called.
The parties’ pleadings
-
The Statement of Particulars on 15 May 2019 identified the injuries the plaintiff suffered as follows:
(a) An injury described as “broken nose/fracture”; and
(b) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
-
The plaintiff’s continuing disabilities were described as:
(a) Difficulty breathing;
(b) Loss of hearing; and
(c) Loss of balance.
-
The Statement of Particulars served with the statement of claim identified future treatment expenses as “extensive surgery in relation to her nose and hearing loss,” adding that details of these expenses would be “advised”. A claim for economic loss was foreshadowed on the basis…
Continue reading Se by her Tutor AH v Grech
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- SE by her Tutor AH v Grech [2020] NSWDC 474
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 474
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the appropriate quantum of damages for the plaintiff's injuries. This involved assessing the extent of her physical and psychological injuries, and considering the impact these had on her life. The court also had to consider the plaintiff's age and future prospects, as well as the defendant's liability for the accident. The key legal issues revolved around the application of relevant statutory provisions and common law principles in quantifying damages for a minor plaintiff.
The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were significant and had a substantial impact on her life. However, due to the complexities of assessing damages for a minor, and the need for further medical evidence, the court decided that it was not appropriate to award any damages at that time. Instead, the court reserved the issue of costs, allowing for potential future applications, and retained the exhibits for further consideration. This decision reflects the court's cautious approach in cases involving the assessment of damages for minors, ensuring that the plaintiff's interests are fully protected.
Orders
Orders of the court
Orders:
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff for $0.
(2) Costs reserved, with liberty to apply.
(3) Exhibits retained until further order.
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.