Tuohey v Freemasons Hospital - [2012] VSCA 80

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2011 0090
PATRICK TUOHEY	Plaintiff
v
FREEMASONS HOSPITAL	Defendant

---

JUDGES	REDLICH and MANDIE JJA and KYROU AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	16 February 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	4 May 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 80
CASE STATED IN MATTER	Tuohey v Freemasons Hospital (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Saccardo, 30 May 2011)

---

PERSONAL INJURY – Damages for economic loss – Case stated – Meaning of Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) s 28F – Where plaintiff’s with injury and without injury weekly earnings exceed statutory cap – Whether statutory cap applies to final award of damages or part of process in assessing award – Legislative intent behind s 28F and Interpretation of Legislation Act1984 (Vic) s 35 – Interference with common law rights – Comparable statutory compensation provisions in other jurisdictions – Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) s 125, Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) s 51.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J Ruskin QC Ms B Y Knoester	Holding Redlich
For the Defendant	Mr J J Noonan SC Mr N Murdoch	Minter Ellison

REDLICH JA:

This appeal is concerned with the correct interpretation of sub-s 28F(2) of the Wrongs Act 1958 (‘the Act’) in calculating damages with respect to past and future economic loss.

In proceedings before Judge Saccardo in the County Court, the plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant in respect of personal injuries suffered by him in 2005 in the course of treatment when he was an inpatient at the defendant’s hospital.

The plaintiff is an engineer in his late forties. He was admitted to the hospital managed and maintained by the defendant as a patient for the purposes of undergoing an umbilical hernia repair procedure. The defendant employed nursing staff to undertake the nursing and care of patients at the hospital. Shortly after the completion of the surgical procedure, a nurse employed by the hospital, acting within the course of her employment, aided the plaintiff to attempt to urinate. Having assisted the plaintiff to stand, the nurse momentarily absented herself from the plaintiff’s side to attend another part of the room. During that time the plaintiff collapsed and fell to the floor, sustaining injury to his right eye.

During a directions hearing, the parties made a joint application that the proceedings be adjourned and that the County Court reserve certain questions concerning the proper interpretation of sub-s 28F(2) of the Act in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Court of Appeal pursuant to sub-s 76(1) of the County Court Act 1958.

The parties agreed before his Honour that in the event that the plaintiff established an entitlement to damages against the defendant, an issue would arise as to the correct interpretation of sub-s 28F(2) in calculating the plaintiff’s entitlement to damages with respect to past and future economic loss. Judge Saccardo was informed that the issue was of such significance that there…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tuohey v Freemasons Hospital and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] VSCA 80
Decision Date: 4 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tuohey v Freemasons Hospital involved the plaintiff, Tuohey, who sought damages for economic loss following a personal injury incident. The defendant, Freemasons Hospital, was responsible for the care of the plaintiff during the incident. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) s 28F, which imposes a statutory cap on damages for economic loss. Specifically, the issue was whether this cap applies to the final award of damages or during the process of assessing the award. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the statutory cap on damages for economic loss under s 28F of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) applies to the final award of damages or if it must be considered at the stage of assessing the award. This required an interpretation of the legislative intent behind s 28F and its interaction with the common law, as well as a comparison with similar statutory compensation provisions in other jurisdictions, such as s 125 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) and s 51 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld). The court also needed to consider whether applying the cap to the final award of damages would interfere with common law rights.

The court concluded that the statutory cap in s 28F of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) applies to the final award of damages rather than during the assessment process. The court's reasoning was grounded in the legislative intent to provide a cap on damages to prevent excessive awards, which aligns with the common law principle of fairness and reasonableness. The comparison with other jurisdictions further supported the court’s interpretation, as similar statutory caps in other states were also applied to the final award. Therefore, the statutory cap was deemed to be applied to the final damages rather than at the assessment stage. This decision ensured that the statutory limit was respected without unduly interfering with common law rights.

The court ordered that the statutory cap on damages for economic loss under s 28F of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) be applied to the final award of damages in this case. This meant that the hospital's liability would be calculated based on the statutory cap, ensuring that the plaintiff's compensation was within the legislative limits while maintaining the integrity of common law principles.

Orders