Legal Research
Cases
Winfield v Jones

Winfield v Jones

Case [2010] SADC 24 3 March 2010

Causation

Compensatory Damages

Personal Injury

Remoteness of Damages

Pre-existing Conditions

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
WINFIELD v JONES
[2010] SADC 24
Judgment of His Honour Judge Beazley
3 March 2010
DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURIES
Assessment of Damages – plaintiff injured on 10 September 2001 in motor vehicle accident in which her father died – plaintiff suffering from pre-existing biliary dysfunction; narcotic seeking behaviour and reactive depression prior to accident - plaintiff had pre-existing degenerative spinal changes which were asymptomatic before the subject accident - physical injuries sustained by the plaintiff in subject accident substantially resolved, leaving a minor impairment of the cervical and thoracic spine and right hip – the significant issue at the trial was the extent to which the subject motor vehicle accident was causative of the plaintiff’s persistent psychiatric condition – conflict of expert evidence in part based upon different understandings as to the aetiology of the plaintiff’s psychiatric condition – relevance of pre-existing physical and psychiatric condition – difficulty in disentangling factors contributing to ongoing psychiatric condition - whether plaintiff's grief "normal" and non compensable - whether family's abnormal reaction to loss of her father too remote - the plaintiff had not been employed for 10 years prior to the subject accident - whether she retained any residual earning capacity irrespective of the subject accident.
Held: The plaintiff's damages assessed at $119,952.05 inclusive of interest to judgment.
Wrongs Act 1936 (SA) s 35A(1), referred to.
Shorey v PT Ltd (2003) 77 ALJR 1104; City of Brimbank v Halilovic [2000] VSCA 12; Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1; Cameron v Sullivan [1962] QWN 32; Nominal Defendant v Clancy [2007] NSWCA 349; Tame v NSW (2002) 211 CLR 317; Pham v Lawson (1997) 68 SASR 124 at 150; Nader v Urban Transit Authority (1985) 2 NSWLR 501; Trevorrow v SA [2007] SASC 285; NSW v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536; Wilson v Peisley (1975) 50 ALJR 207; Arthur Robinson (Grafton) Pty Ltd v Carter (1968) 122 CLR 649; Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164; Hoffmueller v Commonwealth (1981) 54 FLR 48, discussed.

PROCEDURE
Subpoenas – plaintiff had made applications for Centrelink benefits before and after the subject accident – defendant causes subpoena to be issued seeking access to the documents comprising the plaintiff’s file with Centrelink- whether application by the defendant is exempted from the prohibition against release contained in s 207 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) – alternatively whether the Court may direct the plaintiff to execute an authority obliging Centrelink to release relevant documents to the defendant.
Held: The documents sought by the defendant from Centrelink not exempted from prohibition in s207 of the Act. Subpoena issued at request of defendant set aside. The court however empowered to direct the plaintiff to execute an authority to Centrelink to release specified documents.
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) s 207; Social Security…

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 Winfield v Jones

Details

AGLC: Winfield v Jones [2010] SADC 24
Case: [2010] SADC 24
Decision Date: 3 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Winfield v Jones involved a plaintiff who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 10 September 2001, in which her father tragically died. The primary dispute centred on the extent to which the accident caused the plaintiff’s ongoing psychiatric condition, and the measure of damages for the injuries she sustained. The Court was required to assess the plaintiff's pre-existing medical conditions, including biliary dysfunction, narcotic seeking behaviour, reactive depression, and asymptomatic degenerative spinal changes, and their interplay with the injuries she sustained in the accident. The plaintiff had a minor impairment of her cervical and thoracic spine and right hip post-accident, but the physical injuries had substantially resolved.

The legal issues that the Court had to decide included the extent to which the accident caused the plaintiff’s persistent psychiatric condition, the relevance of her pre-existing physical and psychiatric conditions, and the extent to which her grief and the family's reaction to the loss of her father contributed to her ongoing psychiatric condition. The Court also had to determine the admissibility of Centrelink documents related to the plaintiff's applications for benefits before and after the accident. The Court examined whether the defendant's subpoena seeking access to these documents was exempt from the prohibition against release under section 207 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth), or whether it could direct the plaintiff to execute an authority for Centrelink to release the documents.

The Court found that the plaintiff's psychiatric condition was significantly influenced by the accident, despite the presence of pre-existing conditions. The evidence presented by experts conflicted, but the Court considered the causation and contribution of the accident to the plaintiff's condition. The Court determined that the plaintiff's grief was not "normal" and thus compensable, and the family's abnormal reaction to the loss was not too remote a consequence of the accident. Additionally, the Court held that the defendant's subpoena was not exempt from the prohibition against release, but it could direct the plaintiff to execute an authority for Centrelink to release the relevant documents. The Court's decision provided clarity on the measure of damages for the plaintiff's injuries and the admissibility of Centrelink documents in this case.

Orders