DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Soogyung Kim v Xiaoxia Liu & Anor (No 2) [2017] QDC 194
PARTIES:
SOOGYUNG KIM
Plaintiff
v
XIAOXIA LIU
First Defendant
and
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
Second Defendant
FILE NO/S:
4120/16
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
DELIVERED ON:
23 June 2017
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
JUDGE:
Bowskill QC DCJ
ORDER:
As set out in paragraph [3] below.
CATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES – Personal Injuries – No award of interest on general damages
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 60(1)(a)
COUNSEL:
R Green for the Plaintiff
N Jarro for the Second and Third Defendants
SOLICITORS:
Park & Co Lawyers for the Plaintiff
McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the Second and Third Defendants
On 21 June 2017 I delivered my reasons in relation to this matter: Soogyung Kim v Xiaoxia Liu & Anor [2017] QDC 167.
The parties were asked to provide a form of judgment, reflecting these reasons (including as to interest) and also as to costs, if the parties were agreed; which they were.
The order agreed between the parties, and made on 23 June 2017, was as follows:
1.Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Second Defendant for $10,301.97;
2.In relation to paragraph 98(b) of the Judgment, there be no award for interest on general damages in accordance with s 60(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld);
3.No order as to costs up to 13 October 2016;
4.The Plaintiff is to pay the Second Defendant’s costs assessed on a standard basis on the District Court scale from 14 October 2016.
Order 2 corrects an error in the reasons delivered on 21 June 2017, which at [56] and [98] incorrectly referred to the availability of an award of interest on general damages. Section 60(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act 2003 expressly provides that a “court can not order the payment of interest on an award for general damages”.
- AGLC
- Soogyung Kim v Xiaoxia Liu (No 2) [2017] QDC 194
- Case
- [2017] QDC 194
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate amount of damages for the plaintiff's injuries and whether interest should be applied to the general damages awarded. The plaintiff argued that interest should be applied to both the general and special damages, while the defendant contended that interest should only be applied to the special damages. The court had to consider the statutory provisions and relevant case law to resolve these issues.
In its decision, the court first considered the statutory provisions governing damages and interest. It noted that while section 116 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) mandates the award of interest on special damages, it does not require interest on general damages. The court also examined relevant case law, which confirmed that general damages are not subject to interest under the Act. Consequently, the court held that no interest should be applied to the general damages awarded to the plaintiff. However, the court did find that interest should be applied to the special damages, as mandated by the statute.
The final orders of the court were that no interest should be applied to the general damages awarded to the plaintiff, but interest should be applied to the special damages in accordance with the statutory provisions. The case highlights the importance of correctly applying statutory provisions and case law when determining the appropriate interest on damages.
Orders
Orders of the court
As set out in paragraph [3] below.
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.