Treonne Wholesale Meat Pty Limited & Anor v Saheen

The case of *Treonne Wholesale Meat Pty Limited & Anor v Saheen* involved an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the assessment of damages for a respondent who, as an infant, suffered severe brain damage in a motor vehicle accident. By the time of the trial, the respondent had become an adult, but the brain damage rendered them unable to manage their own affairs. The appellants sought special leave to appeal on the basis that the matter raised a novel and significant question of law regarding the allowance of damages for the costs of managing a fund.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether damages should be allowed as a separate head for the costs of managing a fund established for a plaintiff who is unable to manage their own affairs due to injuries sustained in an accident. The appellants argued that this was a new area of law that had not been definitively considered by the High Court, and that there was considerable debate and differing approaches among various Australian courts, as well as in overseas jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and Canada. They contended that the High Court's decision was necessary to clarify these discrepancies and provide a consistent approach.

The appellants' primary submission was that the costs of managing a fund are subsumed within the 3 per cent discount rate previously established by the High Court in *Todorovic v Waller* and reaffirmed in *Commonwealth v Blackwell*. They argued that this discount rate was designed to address all difficult questions related to the assessment of future losses, including considerations of investment advice and management costs, and that it was intended to be a general rule across the board. Therefore, they contended, no separate allowance should be made for management costs, as this had already been implicitly accounted for in the discount rate. The appellants further argued that the discount rate inherently considered all types of plaintiffs, including those who might be mentally handicapped, and therefore did not require a distinct allowance for management costs in cases involving such plaintiffs.