Szumicki v Transport Accident Commission
[2023] VCC 1179
•10 July 2023 (ex tempore)
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne COMMON LAW DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Serious Injury List
Case No. CI-22-05156
| MIROSLAW SZUMICKI | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE PURCELL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 10 July 2023 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 10 July 2023 (ex tempore) | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Szumicki v Transport Accident Commission | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 1179 | |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
Subject:TRANSPORT ACCIDENT
Catchwords: Serious injury – injury to the cervical spine – whether “very considerable”
Legislation Cited: Transport Accident Act 1986
Cases Cited:Richards v Wylie (2000) 1 VR 79
Judgment: Proceeding dismissed.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr J Fitzpatrick with Mr M Belmar | Shine Lawyers |
| For the Defendant | Mr P Jens KC with Ms C Shambrook | Hall & Wilcox |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1I say two things at the commencement – firstly, that this is a proceeding in which the parties really agree everything except the result. Secondly, one of the things that it seems to me is agreed is that the plaintiff in this proceeding, Mr Szumicki, is what we might describe in the colloquial as a "good bloke". He is a father with two children, one of whom has had the tragic misfortune to be involved in a motorcycle accident. For any parent who has had children who love motorcycles or ride motorcycles, to me it must be the worst possible result. It seems to me that, really, that event has not properly been understood or explained in the material, but I would not want anything that has occurred today to be taken by Mr Szumicki to think that in some way, the consequences of that and the tragic nature of that have not been understood by the Court.
2In any event, the plaintiff in this proceeding is a now 57-year old married bus driver born in Poland in 1966. He has lived and worked in Australia since the early 1990s. For the last 15 or 16 years or so, he has been employed full-time as a bus driver. The plaintiff's past health is broadly capable of being described as good; he was involved in a skiing accident approximately 30 years ago and fractured his coccyx but appears to have no ongoing consequences from that.
3He has been treated for what I will crudely describe as various ‘bits and pieces’ which emerged from the clinical records, such as skin cancer concerns, blood pressure, prostate, and some passing reference to the understandable concerns following his son's motorcycle accident. But there is no suggestion that he had any significant musculoskeletal problems before the motor vehicle accident that brings us here today – that is, notwithstanding some cross-examination about some pelvic or lower back problem shortly before the subject car accident, to which I shall return.
4Turning then to the specifics, the plaintiff in this proceeding was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 16 October 2018 (“the accident”). It is a slightly unusual accident in that a Kia sedan collided with a four-wheel drive vehicle which was immediately behind the plaintiff's car and caused the four-wheel drive to be pushed into his car. However, there is no dispute that the accident occurred. Because of the accident, the plaintiff claimed to have suffered a serious injury to the cervical spine.
5As I said a moment ago, despite a challenge in cross-examination about initial treatment for low back symptoms with an exercise physiologist, ultimately the defendant does not dispute that the plaintiff suffered a neck injury in the accident. Also, it does not dispute that there are some ongoing consequences from that compensable neck injury.
6In that context, this is a proceeding brought by the plaintiff pursuant to s93 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 (“the Act”). The plaintiff eventually confined his claim to an alleged serious physical injury to the neck and abandoned any claimed serious psychiatric consequences. The claim narrowed further, notwithstanding that it arises out of the Act to really be confined to a question – whether the plaintiff can demonstrate a "very considerable" pain and suffering consequence.
7It narrowed in that way because he continues to work full-time as a bus driver including overtime as required by his employer. There is no evidence in fact that he has lost a day's work because of his neck injury. There is no evidence that he has had to decline shifts or leave work early because of neck pain. As he conceded in cross-examination, albeit from the perspective of a layman and not a lawyer, he could not objectively prove any loss of earnings to date and as such, any reliance on loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity, even when combined with pain and suffering consequences, was not pressed.
8The proceeding was otherwise conducted in the usual manner. The plaintiff tendered a court book comprising affidavits sworn by him and other relevant documents and medical reports relied on. The defendant also tendered a court book which contained medical reports and documents relied on by it. The plaintiff was otherwise required for cross-examination. I have considered the contents of the court books and the plaintiff's oral evidence, albeit without the benefit of a formal transcript, but I do not believe I require a formal transcript to arrive at my conclusion. I shall refer to the evidence to the extent necessary in these reasons.
Legal principles
9Very briefly, regarding legal principles, that can neatly be summed up by saying in this proceeding they are well-known and not in dispute. The plaintiff must, of course, demonstrate a "very considerable" consequence by reference to the identified impairment consequences from his neck injury. In this case, because it is arising out of a transport accident, from both pain and suffering and economic loss consequences, although as mentioned, as he candidly conceded, he did not claim any economic loss consequences.
Credit
10Next, a very brief word about credit. As has been said many times in these types or proceedings, the credit of the plaintiff is often of critical importance.
11This is not a case where the plaintiff's credit has been impugned. He gave what I considered to be candid evidence and made concessions as appropriate. From my limited exposure, having met him once in the witness box, he came across as likeable. In fact, if possible to do so, if anything, he may have been too candid for his own good. For example, he conceded during cross-examination that he had not returned to some home renovation activities, such as tiling, due to a fear of aggravating an unrelated low back condition.
12He also described how he had given up snow skiing from a fear of aggravating his neck injury as opposed to giving evidence of being restricted because of symptoms from his neck injury. In any event, I accept I can rely on his oral evidence.
The evidence
13Turning, then, to the evidence. He was challenged broadly about the extent of his restrictions, his level of symptoms, his unrelated conditions and the treatment that he has had, or perhaps more relevantly to the current situation, the lack of treatment, including his use (or rather, lack of use) of medication.
14I have considered his affidavit evidence in context with his oral evidence. Broadly, the picture is of a man with an ongoing neck condition, but self-evidently not one that has caused catastrophic consequences for him. In fact, pausing here, as I have said in other cases there are some injuries and impairments that are clearly serious, and then there are some that are clearly not. In between, there are cases that sit somewhere in the middle, and the proceeding before the Court is one such example of a case that sits somewhere in the middle.
15Of course, I must consider not only his pain, his treatment and what he has suffered and lost, but I must also consider what he still retains. That really was a focus of the defendant in final submission. The defendant submits the plaintiff still retains an ability to do activity, such as gardening. He obviously still drives the bus full-time, including overtime. He is capable of overseas travel. He still has some social life and pleasurable interactions with his wife.
The plaintiff’s affidavits
16Turning to his affidavits, there are two of those. The first affidavit was sworn on 21 September 2022. It was raised with his counsel it appears from that affidavit that the plaintiff did not have any time off after the accident, and whatever symptoms he has had in his neck he has not missed any time off from work. He described, in that affidavit, the treatment he has had by way of injections with the pain specialist, Dr Gavin Weekes. I will come to Dr Weekes' evidence in a moment.
17Under a heading of "Current Situation", he described ongoing treatment. He described continuing right-sided neck pain radiating into his right arm. He said in that affidavit, and I quote, "More recently I've begun to have right ear and right-sided head pains".
18I must say, under consideration of the medical evidence I struggle to understand the organic cause of those symptoms, but I do not think much turns on that ultimately.
19In the affidavit, he used language such as "struggling to engage in household duties". He talks about the lawn taking longer to mow. He talks about how he could manage some light weeding, but to be careful and manage it at his own pace. He talks about struggling to walk the dog.
20More recently, in an affidavit sworn on 23 May 2023, a lot of those consequences were repeated. He described continuing to experience the pain referred to in his earlier affidavit. But in the recent affidavit he said he had short times when occasionally pain free, but never pain free on the right side of his head and right ear. He talks about continuing to have pain "radiating through my shoulders, down my right arm." He described pain in the right hand, and occasional numbness in the right index finger.
21In that affidavit he described how he no longer walked the dog because it pulled and affected his pain. He said the worst pain was the shooting pain which reaches nearly eight out of ten, and can go down the right arm.
22He talked about interference with sleep, an increase with alcohol consumption, and a restriction for activities such as panel beating, motorcycle riding and handyman duties. I will return to say a few words about that evidence in the context of the medical evidence.
The plaintiff’s medical evidence
23It is convenient then to turn to the medical evidence. Firstly, I note there is nothing useful from any general practitioner. There is a medical report from Dr Piratheepan,[1] but that really does not tell me anything.
[1] Plaintiff’s court book (“PCB”) 48.
24The plaintiff's main treatment appeared to have been with a different general practitioner, Dr Ross Wines, who I understand from reading the clinical records does not wish to be involved in TAC claims. The net result though is that there is really nothing useful from a treating general practitioner.
(i) Dr Gavin Weekes
25Turning to the balance of the material from treating practitioners, commencing with Dr Weekes. He is a pain management specialist to whom the plaintiff was referred by Dr Ann French. There is no evidence from Dr French. Dr Weekes provided three reports, the first of those is dated the 8th of December 2020. He described the referral from Dr French for a right C6 radiculopathy. [2]
[2] PCB 31.
26Dr Weekes set out the treatment to that point by Dr French, and described it as not particularly effective. He had the benefit of an MRI scan. He noted the plaintiff continued to work as a bus driver. He said when he first reviewed the plaintiff on the 7th of January 2020 that he could not find any focal neurological deficit in his upper limbs, and flexion and extension of the cervical spine was reasonably normal.
27Dr Weekes then set out his review appointments with the plaintiff, and arrangements for physiotherapy. By the 30th of April 2020, he had discussed with the plaintiff the role of a diagnostic right C6 nerve root block. Eventually, that procedure was performed on the 16th of November 2020.
28At review on the 8th of December 2020, Dr Weekes described the plaintiff as about fifty per cent reduced in his pain. He said then that he felt most of his residual pain was myofascial. It is not entirely clear to me what he means by using that phrase to ascribe it to the plaintiff. But in any event, he recommended ongoing physiotherapy.
29In that report, Dr Weekes described the prognosis as "reasonably good". He noted the plaintiff had responded reasonably well to treatment. He diagnosed cervical spondylosis with evidence of right C6 radicular pain and said it was difficult to say if the injuries had stabilised at that time.
30Dr Weekes next reported on the 4th of June 2022.[3] He said that report should be read in the context of his earlier report for continuity. He picked up the story from a review on the 6th of February 2021, and said the plaintiff still reported some benefit from the right C6 nerve root block, but his main issues from the point of view of pain was:
"Ongoing myofascial pain in the cervical region with some pain radiating from the neck to the right hand side of his head and ear, which could be aggravated by cervical spine movements and also some ongoing discomfort in his right arm."[4]
[3] PCB 33.
[4]Ibid.
31At that attendance, Dr Weekes discussed a further diagnostic procedure by way of a right third occipital nerve and greater occipital nerve, lesser occipital nerve and C3 medial branch block. He reviewed the plaintiff on 19 March 2021 and said his condition had not really changed. At that stage, they were still awaiting approval for the occipital nerve blocks. However, apparently the plaintiff had already noticed some slight improvement in his overall right arm pain and low back pain since he was last seen. Pausing there, I note that the low back pain is unrelated to the subject transport accident.
32In any event, on 19 May 2021 Dr Weekes performed the various occipital nerve and branch blocks. At review on 17 June, he recorded that the plaintiff had noticed about a sixty to seventy per cent improvement following that procedure, but by 2 August 2021 Dr Weekes reported that the occipital nerve block had worn off and there was then a discussion about a pulsed radio frequency neurotomy.
33There were then reviews in October and November 2021 and January 2022. On 27 January 2022, Dr Weekes recorded that following a right-sided third occipital nerve and greater occipital nerve and lesser occipital nerve block that he had recently performed on 10 January that the plaintiff was then sixty to seventy per cent improved. He repeated his view that the plaintiff was a good candidate for a pulsed radio frequency neurotomy.[5]
[5] PCB 34.
34His next and final review was on 1 April 2022. He repeated the history that the plaintiff had told him that he had some seventy per cent pain relief following the last procedure. He said, "I counselled him on the option of right-sided greater occipital nerve, third occipital nerve and lesser occipital nerve pulsed radio frequency neurotomy."[6] He then made the necessary application. I note that procedure was apparently not approved or yet to be approved; in any event, it has not been performed.
[6] Ibid.
35Dr Weekes reported a diagnosis of cervical spondylosis with evidence of right C6 radicular pain and cervicogenic headache. He said,
"It is highly likely Mr Szumicki will continue with some pain and disability for the foreseeable future. Overall, I would say his condition has stabilised and he is unlikely to significantly improve or disimprove by more than three per cent in the next 12 months."[7]
[7] Ibid.
36Dr Weekes then provided the third report dated 23 May 2023.[8] That is really directed towards the planned radio frequency neurotomy procedure and does not add much to the overall discussion.
[8] PCB 36.
(ii) Dr Justin Moar
37Next, Dr Justin Moar is the treating physiotherapist to whom the plaintiff was referred by Dr Weekes, although the initial treatment was with Dr Moar's colleague, Chris Harris. Dr Moar himself assessed the plaintiff for the first time on 20 April; he had a history of the plaintiff describing "intermittent right-sided neck pain in the mid-cervical region, with intermittent headache and radiation of pain to his scapula region".[9] He also had a description of arm pain and that rotation to the right was painful, as was cervical flexion.
[9] PCB 38.
38In that report, Dr Moar sets out various attendances for treatment. There was an initial completion of ten sessions and then an attempt at self-management. In early 2021, at review, the plaintiff apparently told Mr Moar that it was difficult to sustain his home exercise program and there had been a flare-up in arm symptoms, and he had been back to see Dr Weekes and the subsequent injections.
39At the last review, according to that report, on 4 March 2021, Mr Moar reported the plaintiff describing the upper cervical pain and pain into the ear had become less constant and less severe, and the plaintiff had been undertaking home exercises on a regular basis.
40As at 8 April 2021, Mr Moar described the prognosis as "fair". He said the plaintiff had demonstrated improvement with medical and physiotherapy intervention. He said it was likely the plaintiff would need to proactively manage his condition for the foreseeable future. He diagnosed a C5-6 disc protrusion with right C6 nerve root irritation, responsive to nerve root injection.
41In describing the effects of the injury, he said the plaintiff had been able to maintain consistent and regular employment in his usual role as a bus driver, with avoidance of driving a bus with a problematic setup.[10] He reported the plaintiff as being less inclined to seek overtime work due to fatigue, lower mood and as a result of ongoing pain. He described the plaintiff as limited for activity involving repetitive reaching, pushing and pulling with the right upper limb, and that might preclude him pruning bushes or cutting branches around the garden.
[10] PCB 40.
42There is no other report from Mr Moar, but some of his clinical notes were referred to by the defendant as they are contained in the defendant's court book. In particular, in closing submission, senior counsel for the defendant referred to Mr Moar's clinical note of 14 April 2022,[11] where the plaintiff's then symptoms were described as relatively mild and capable of being treated with self-management.
[11] Defendant’s court book (“DCB”) 113.
(iii) Dr Kilner Brasier
43Next is Dr Kilner Brasier, who is an occupational and environmental medicine specialist to whom the plaintiff was referred, I believe by Dr Weekes, or it could have been the treating general practitioner as it is a little unclear, but in any event nothing turns on that. The material from Dr Brasier is limited. There is a letter by Dr Brasier to the general practitioner dated 18 March 2020.[12] That noted at examination, I believe on that date, that the plaintiff had cervical spine movement within normal limits, but pain was reported at extremes of all movements, particularly extension and rotation.
[12] PCB 42.
44Dr Brasier, under the heading of "Opinion and Plan Management", said the plaintiff had suffered an aggravation of cervical spondylosis resulting in a right C6 radiculopathy, consistent with the accident.
45Dr Brasier then wrote to Dr Weekes by a letter dated 8 April 2021,[13] and noted that the plaintiff was working as a bus driver, was quite fatigued by the end of his shift and suffered some aggravation of his neck symptoms, consisting of right sided ear pain when he drives a particular bus.
[13] PCB 45.
46Dr Brasier went on to say that in his opinion the plaintiff had an ongoing capacity to continue driving buses, but would restrict him from driving a particular 700 series bus. Otherwise, there is not much that flows from that report.
The plaintiff’s medico-legal evidence
(i) Professor Stephen Davis
47Turning, then, to the plaintiff's medico-legal material. Firstly, there is a report from Professor Stephen Davis, neurologist, dated 19 October 2020.[14] He had a history of the plaintiff being at work ever since the accident, full-time in his normal occupation. He had a history that the plaintiff would like to continue physiotherapy and was then awaiting approval. And that with physiotherapy there had been some improvement in symptoms of a stiff neck.
[14] PCB 68.
48Professor Davis noted on examination there was ongoing pain and stiffness in the neck running down the arm. Neck movements showed the pain to a greater degree into the arm, pointing to the upper arm, less often in the forearm. He had a history of intermittent sensory disturbance into the right index and middle fingers. He noted the plaintiff had been affected psychologically. He said the plaintiff had headaches, but these can occur particularly in the context of a stressful day. He described the plaintiff as pleasant and cooperative and not embellishing his symptoms, with some tenderness over the neck and restricted neck movements. But he found that there were no neurological abnormalities, and in particular he had quite active and symmetrical reflexes at C5 and C6 levels.
49Professor Davis said the plaintiff had suffered a significant soft tissue musculoligamentous jolting type injury to the neck, and that it had produced variable but chronic cervical pain with a significant degree of right sided brachial neuralgia, radicular pain, which would be consistent with MRI changes, but no objective clinical findings. He thought the nerve root injection would be a reasonable course of action.
50He had a history that the work exacerbated neck and arm pain. The plaintiff could only do minimal house and garden work, and tried to avoid rapid movements of his neck. And for example, he had given up renovation of a room at home. He had a history that wearing a helmet flared up neck pain when riding a motorcycle. He said he hoped that the plaintiff's pain would settle down with conservative treatment.
(ii) Dr Hazem Akil
51The last and final medico-legal opinion provided by the plaintiff is from Dr Hazem Akil, a consultant neurosurgeon. He examined the plaintiff and provided a report dated the 20th of March 2023.[15] He took a history of the plaintiff having constant and persistent neck pain, primarily affecting the right side of his neck. It improved on certain exercises like hydrotherapy and rest. He described a reporting of radiation towards the right arm, also involving the index and middle fingers.
[15] PCB 72.
52He had a history that the plaintiff continued to work as a bus driver, and that the plaintiff had described how he felt better from the mental point of view by working, although he continued to have pain.
53Dr Akil on examination noticed an element of reduced range of motion of the cervical spine of a moderate degree, and no sensory deficit on neurological examination. He reviewed a recent MRI from March 2023. He then went on to express a diagnosis. He said:
"The clinical symptoms and signs are compatible with aggravation of cervical spondylosis with an associated right C6 radiculopathy."[16]
[16] PCB 74.
54Dr Akil described the prognosis as guarded. In respect to impact on life he said:
"He does have a struggle in minor aspects of his life like walking his dogs. He feels that his ability to do minor household works is limited and he relies on his wife for that."
55Dr Akil also described the plaintiff feeling "way more stressed", and described consequences on libido from that. He described the plaintiff previously enjoying working on cars, skiing and motorbike riding, but had stopped those activities since the accident.
56Dr Akil went on to say regarding the plaintiff's work:
"He feels that if he does not go to work, it will affect his mental health. However, in my opinion, given the persistent pain, the maximum number of hours that he can do should be limited to between 16 to 20 hours a week, this is obviously should he feel that he is able to persevere with his job."[17]
[17] PCB 76.
57In respect to that opinion, I consider it is inconsistent with the balance of the medical evidence and inconsistent with the plaintiff's own evidence. In fact, there is no suggestion that the plaintiff does not feel that he can persevere with his job. At its highest, there was a suggestion that ongoing overtime might be problematic for him. It is unclear to me how Dr Akil arrived at an opinion that the plaintiff should limit bus driving to 16 to 20 hours a week.
The defendant’s medico-legal evidence
(i) Professor Gavin Davis
58Turning, then, to the defendant's medico-legal evidence. That is contained in a report from Professor Gavin Davis, neurosurgeon, dated the 1st of May 2023.[18] He obtained a history of the accident, the injury and the plaintiff's symptoms as well as activities of daily living, treatment and impact on him. Relevantly, though, on clinical examination he found that examination of the cervical spine demonstrated normal range of motion for age. There was no tenderness or palpable muscle spasm of the neck. He said that examination of the upper limbs demonstrated normal tone and power throughout. He had the benefit of the recent March 2023 MRI. Professor Gavin Davis described that as disclosing mild age-related degenerative changes, particularly at C5-6 and C6-7 with what he described as marked improvement of the disc prolapse at the C5-6 level compared with the 2023 imaging.
[18] DCB 9.
59Pausing there, not that much turns on this, but it is clear that Professor Gavin Davis had access to a CD of the imaging and looked at the imaging himself rather than relying upon what had been recorded by a radiologist. It's not entirely clear to me whether Dr Akil relied upon the reports from the radiologist or had the benefit of looking at the scans himself.
60In any event, returning to Professor Gavin Davis' opinion, he too diagnosed aggravation of cervical spondylosis without myopathy or radiculopathy relevant to the alleged injuries. He noted the plaintiff was working full-time as a bus driver. He said the plaintiff reported limitations of work capacity as being related to the neck and right upper limb and not the low back, and therefore he thought the unrelated low back condition did not result in an incapacity for work. He said he considered the plaintiff capable of suitable employment.
61Under the heading of prognosis and need for further treatment, Professor Gavin Davis said,
"The patient has persistent pain and self-reported psychological issues in relation to the alleged injury ... further treatment is required. This is in the form of a multidisciplinary pain milligram and rehabilitation program, that should include psychological/psychiatric management in addition to the management prescribed by a suitably qualified non-interventional rehabilitation physician."[19]
[19] DCB 16.
62Professor Gavin Davis also commented on the usefulness of ongoing physiotherapy.
63That is the extent of the medico-legal evidence.
Analysis
64Turning then to my analysis – firstly, on consideration of the totality of the medical evidence, on clinical examination the plaintiff has demonstrated close to if not a full range of cervical movement, perhaps on occasion with some reporting of pain at extremes of movement. Also on clinical examination, normal tone and power through the upper limb has been recorded by the examiners, notwithstanding the various injections and procedures that Dr Weekes has performed. The diagnosis on balance that I accept is the aggravation of cervical spondylosis without true radiculopathy.
65Turning then to impairment consequences, first broadly returning to legal principles, I must of course consider the range of injuries and impairment consequences and not just those that come before the courts.
66Next, I accept the plaintiff has ongoing neck pain and symptoms into the right arm. I accept that the neck pain and arm symptoms impact and make some day-to-day activity more difficult for him. I have some difficulty understanding the described right-sided face and ear symptoms, but I don't believe that affects the result in this proceeding because, even if I considered them to be accident-related, I would consider the result to be the same.
67Notwithstanding ongoing symptoms, including the right-sided facial symptoms, the plaintiff does continue to be active.
68Firstly, and obviously, he works full-time as a bus driver, as I understand it without any accommodation made for him by his employer, and really without him making any accommodation himself other than the use of some form of cushion, which as I understood his oral evidence was really to assist manage his low back. He still undertakes overtime when his employer requires him to do so.
69Secondly, the plaintiff continues to be active in his family's life. He continues to spend time with them. He continues to socialise with his wife. I accept that some activities, such as heavier housework or heavier maintenance, may be reduced. But equally, the reason that those types of activities have been reduced appears to have been compromised by reasons other than the plaintiff's neck pain.
70Thirdly, he gave candid evidence about the unrelated back injury, and how that impacted on home maintenance, such as tiling. He also gave evidence about curtailing some activities because of a fear of further injury. Bearing in mind that this is a case about physical consequences and not emotional consequences, a fear of suffering further injury is also not an emotional consequences in the Richards v Wylie[20] context that can be taken into account with the physical symptoms. In that sense, I am not persuaded that the plaintiff's neck injury and impairment consequences from it in isolation would prevent him from walking the dog, doing some home maintenance such as tiling, or snow skiing. But even if I was convinced, the result is the same.
[20] (2000) 1 VR 79.
Conclusion
71Having considered the evidence in the plaintiff's affidavits and his oral evidence his injury could not be said to be trivial, and it could even be described as marked or significant, but in my view it cannot be said to be "very considerable".
72I mentioned at the start that the plaintiff could be described as a good bloke. Of course, in deciding the case I must put aside my sympathy for him and consider it with well-established legal principles. Unfortunately, on this occasion, for someone who I think is a good bloke, his injury simply does not reach the statutory threshold of “very considerable”.
73For those reasons, the proceeding is dismissed.
0
1
0