Starr v Greenfreight (Services) Pty Ltd - [2015] VSC 759

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2014 04089

STARR	Plaintiff
v
GREENFREIGHT (SERVICES) PTY LTD	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Wodonga
DATES OF HEARING:	26, 30 November, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 16 December 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 December 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Starr v Greenfreight (Services) Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 759

---

NEGLIGENCE – General damages – Whether interest payable on pain and suffering damages – Supreme Court Act 1986 s 60 - Accident Compensation Act 1985 ss 134AB, 135C - Eccles v Taylor [1995] 2 VR 482 – Williams v Oataway [2004-05] 11 VF 529.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A. Adams QC Mr M. Waugh	Harris Lieberman Solicitors Pty Ltd
For the Defendant	Mr P. Jens QC Mr M. Clarke	Wisewould Mahony

HIS HONOUR:

Background

On 7 December 2015, a jury returned verdicts in three separate actions for negligence brought by the plaintiff against his employer. The plaintiff had sued for general damages only (pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of amenity). The jury found negligence in all three causes of action and awarded general damages of $2,000, $2,000 and $241,000. The total pain and suffering damages awarded was thus $245,000. The plaintiff’s actions were brought under s 134AB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (ACA).

Pre-proceeding statutory offers were made. They are irrelevant to the question of law I am asked to determine, which is:

Is the plaintiff entitled to interest on these awards for pain and suffering damages?

Section 60 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 provides that the Court, unless good cause is shown to the contrary, must give damages in the nature of interest to run from the commencement of the proceeding to the date of the judgment. This section is confronted by s 134AB(34) of the ACA, which reads as follows:

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 death of or injury to the person in respect of whom the award is made to date of the award.

This tortuous 75-word sentence has been the subject of consideration by Ashley J in Eccles v Taylor (Eccles).[1] In that case, the sentence appeared in s 93(15) of the Transport Accident Act 1986 (TAA). His Honour concluded that interest was not payable on pain and suffering damages.[2]

[1][1995] 2 VR 482.

[2]I shall use this term interchangeably with general damages awarded for pain and suffering, loss of amenity, and loss of enjoyment of life.

Mr Waugh, who appeared with Mr Adams QC for the plaintiff, contends that Eccles was wrongly decided, relevantly disapproved…

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 [2015] VSC 759
Case: [2015] VSC 759
Decision Date: 22 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Starr brought a claim against Greenfreight (Services) Pty Ltd for damages arising from a workplace accident. Starr alleged that Greenfreight was negligent in the operation of its forklift, leading to an injury that caused Starr pain and suffering. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue for the court was whether interest should be paid on the damages awarded for pain and suffering. Starr argued that, under the Supreme Court Act 1986, interest should be paid on all damages awarded, while Greenfreight contended that the Accident Compensation Act 1985 precluded the payment of interest on pain and suffering damages.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law, including Eccles v Taylor and Williams v Oataway. The court held that, under the Supreme Court Act 1986, interest is payable on all damages awarded, including those for pain and suffering, unless expressly excluded by statute. The Accident Compensation Act 1985 did not expressly exclude interest on pain and suffering damages, so the court found that interest should be paid on such damages. The court also noted that the policy rationale behind the payment of interest on damages is to compensate the plaintiff for the loss of use of the money awarded, and this rationale applies equally to pain and suffering damages.

The Supreme Court of Victoria awarded Starr damages for pain and suffering, along with interest on those damages at the rate set out in the Supreme Court Act 1986. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders