Legal Research
Cases
Starr v Greenfreight (Services) Pty Ltd

Starr v Greenfreight (Services) Pty Ltd

Case [2016] VSCA 213 9 September 2016

Damages

Limitation Periods

Appeal

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2016 0004

GLENN STANLEY STARR	Applicant
v
GREENFREIGHT (SERVICES) PTY LTD (ABN 44 004 674 462)	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	OSBORN, BEACH and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	6 September 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 September 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 213
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2015] VSC 759 (T Forrest J)

---

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – Damages – Interest – Damages in the nature of interest – Claim governed by s 134AB of Accident Compensation Act 1985 – Award of pain and suffering damages – Whether damages in nature of interest payable on award of pain and suffering damages – Eccles v Taylor [1995] 2 VR 482 applied – Application for leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed – Transport Accident Act 1986, s 93(15) – Accident Compensation Act 1985, s 134AB(34).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr T Tobin QC with Mr M J G Waugh	Harris Lieberman Solicitors Pty Ltd
For the Respondent	Mr M F Wheelahan QC with Ms M Norton	Wisewould Mahony

OSBORN JA

BEACH JA
KAYE JA:

The issue in this case is whether a worker who obtains a judgment for ‘pain and suffering damages’, as that expression is defined in s 134AB(37) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (‘the AC Act’), is entitled to damages in the nature of interest in relation to that award.[1]
[1]The expression ‘pain and suffering damages’ is defined in s 134AB(37) of the AC Act to mean ‘damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life or loss of enjoyment of life’.

The plaintiff (who is the applicant in this Court) brought proceedings against his employer (the respondent) to recover common law damages pursuant to s 134AB of the AC Act. After an 8-day jury trial, the plaintiff obtained an award of pain and suffering damages in the sum of $245,000. The plaintiff then applied to the trial judge for an award of damages in the nature of interest. The judge rejected that application, holding that ss 134AB(34) and (35) of the AC Act precluded the award of any interest to the plaintiff.[2]
[2]Starr v Greenfreight (Services) Pty Ltd [2015] VSC 759 (‘Reasons’).

The plaintiff seeks leave to appeal and (if leave is granted) to appeal against the judge’s refusal to award him damages in the nature of interest. For the reasons given below, we have concluded that the trial judge’s decision was correct.

The relevant legislation

The issue in this case is one of statutory construction. That being so, it is necessary to start with the text of the relevant legislative provisions. Sections 134AB(34) and (35) provide:

(34)A court must not, in relation to an award of damages in accordance with this section, order the payment of interest, and no interest shall be payable, on any amount of damages, other than damages referable to loss actually suffered before the date of the award, in respect of the period from the date of the…

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 Starr v Greenfreight (Services) Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Starr v Greenfreight (Services) Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 213
Case: [2016] VSCA 213
Decision Date: 9 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, Starr sued Greenfreight (Services) Pty Ltd, a transport company, for damages arising from an accident. Starr alleged that the accident, which occurred during the course of his employment, resulted in personal injury. The court was tasked with determining whether Starr was entitled to damages in the nature of interest on his pain and suffering damages. This was an important question as it involved the interpretation and application of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 and the Transport Accident Act 1986. The court had to decide if Starr's claim for interest on pain and suffering damages was governed by section 134AB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, and if so, what the implications of this were.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and considered the precedent set by Eccles v Taylor. It held that the claim was indeed governed by section 134AB and that damages in the nature of interest were not payable on pain and suffering damages. The court noted that the statutory scheme provided for specific compensation for different types of damages and that interest on pain and suffering damages was not part of this scheme. The court further held that the statutory provisions did not permit an award of damages in the nature of interest on pain and suffering damages. The appeal was subsequently dismissed.

The Supreme Court granted Starr leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the earlier decision. The Court of Appeal held that the statutory provisions did not permit an award of damages in the nature of interest on pain and suffering damages and that the trial judge's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions was correct. The Court of Appeal further held that the appeal did not raise a question of law of general public importance and that it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. The orders of the Supreme Court were therefore affirmed.

Orders