Simmons v Wanless - [2014] QDC 42

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Simmons v Wanless & another [2014] QDC 42

PARTIES:

ANGELA MARY SIMMONS
(plaintiff)

v

LEIGH DOUGLAS WANLESS and LEITH WANLESS
(defendants)

FILE NO/S:

1742/12

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 & 14 February 2014

JUDGE:

Kingham DCJ

ORDERS:

1.    The defendants must pay the plaintiff the sum of $527,462.14.

2.   Unless either party applies for a different order as to costs, by filing written submissions and serving a copy on the other party within 14 days of this order, the defendants must pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings from 11 April 2012, including reserved costs if any, assessed on the standard basis, if not agreed.

3.   If either party applies for a different order as to costs, the other party has leave to deliver written submissions in reply within 14 days of service of submissions upon them, and the question of costs will be determined on the papers.

CATCHWORDS:

CIVIL – PERSONAL INJURIES - WHERE LIABILITY ADMITTED – WHERE QUANTUM IN DISPUTE

General damages – reference point for calculating past economic loss – discount for uncertainty about possible sedentary occupation for past economic loss – discount for contingencies for future economic loss

COUNSEL:

Mr RC Morton for the plaintiff

Mr BF Charrington for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Morton and Morton for the plaintiff

Hede Byrne & Hall Pty Ltd for the defendants

Ms Simmons’ left hand was severely lacerated while she was working as a kitchen hand at the Westside Tavern in Maryborough. On the morning of 20 April 2010, she was cleaning the large metal drip tray for the grill. It fell from the bench and, instinctively, she reached out and tried to catch it. A sharp edge of the grill cut her hand from the webbing between her second and third fingers halfway down her palm.

After surgery, Ms Simmons tried to return to work but was unable to fully use her left hand, experiencing pain, loss of sensation and reduced grip strength. After successful treatment for a wound infection, she was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. The defendants concede there is a causal connection between the accident and the carpal tunnel condition.

Ms Simmons underwent carpal tunnel decompression surgery in October 2010. This provided initial relief, except for residual weakness in her hand. Later, Ms Simmons said the pain and loss of sensation returned.

Apart from another unsuccessful trial in a hospitality role and a few short term engagements, Ms Simmons has not worked since the carpal tunnel surgery. Over time, she says her symptoms have worsened. Now she is unable to use her left hand for any repetitive or weight bearing tasks without experiencing pain either at the time or later.

Although the defendants admit liability to compensate her for her injury, the amount of the damages is in dispute. I have determined compensation in the sum of $527,462.14 based on amounts for…

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 Simmons v Wanless

Details

AGLC: Simmons v Wanless [2014] QDC 42
Case: [2014] QDC 42
Decision Date: 10 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simmons commenced proceedings against Wanless claiming damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Wanless admitted liability and the sole issue before the court was the quantum of damages payable to Simmons. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of general damages, and the calculation of past and future economic losses, including the appropriate discount rates to be applied. The court considered the appropriate reference points for calculating past economic loss, the discount for uncertainty about a possible sedentary occupation for past economic loss, and the discount for contingencies for future economic loss. In delivering judgment, the court found that Simmons was entitled to $527,462.14 in damages. The court held that the reference point for calculating past economic loss was appropriate, and the discount for uncertainty about a possible sedentary occupation was reasonable. The court also held that the discount for contingencies for future economic loss was appropriate. The court ordered that Wanless pay Simmons $527,462.14 in damages, together with Simmons’ costs of and incidental to the proceedings from 11 April 2012, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The defendants must pay the plaintiff the sum of $527,462.14.

2. Unless either party applies for a different order as to costs, by filing written submissions and serving a copy on the other party within 14 days of this order, the defendants must pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings from 11 April 2012, including reserved costs if any, assessed on the standard basis, if not agreed.

3. If either party applies for a different order as to costs, the other party has leave to deliver written submissions in reply within 14 days of service of submissions upon them, and the question of costs will be determined on the papers.

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.

CITATION:	Simmons v Wanless & another [2014] QDC 42
PARTIES:	ANGELA MARY SIMMONS (plaintiff) v LEIGH DOUGLAS WANLESS and LEITH WANLESS (defendants)
FILE NO/S:	1742/12
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 & 14 February 2014
JUDGE:	Kingham DCJ
ORDERS:	1. The defendants must pay the plaintiff the sum of $527,462.14. 2. Unless either party applies for a different order as to costs, by filing written submissions and serving a copy on the other party within 14 days of this order, the defendants must pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings from 11 April 2012, including reserved costs if any, assessed on the standard basis, if not agreed. 3. If either party applies for a different order as to costs, the other party has leave to deliver written submissions in reply within 14 days of service of submissions upon them, and the question of costs will be determined on the papers.
CATCHWORDS:	CIVIL – PERSONAL INJURIES - WHERE LIABILITY ADMITTED – WHERE QUANTUM IN DISPUTE General damages – reference point for calculating past economic loss – discount for uncertainty about possible sedentary occupation for past economic loss – discount for contingencies for future economic loss
COUNSEL:	Mr RC Morton for the plaintiff Mr BF Charrington for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Morton and Morton for the plaintiff Hede Byrne & Hall Pty Ltd for the defendants