Wright v KB Nut Holdings Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Kerrie-Ann Stevenson Family Trust Trading as Bonapartes Services Apartments

[2012] QDC 56

[2012] QDC 56

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 3367 of 2011

ROBYN JOY WRIGHT	Plaintiff
and
KB NUT HOLDINGS PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE KERRIE-ANN STEVENSON FAMILY TRUST TRADING AS BONAPARTES SERVICES APARTMENTS ACN 127 646 619	Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 14/03/2012

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Civil Liability Act 2003
Civil Liability Regulations 2003

Personal injuries claim - trail adjourned on defendant's application to enable its psychiatrist to determine a PIRS for the plaintiff - the plaintiff's psychiatrist had asserted 17% - that was doubled 6 days before trial and increased again to 57% on the eve of the trial

HIS HONOUR:  Regretfully I think this trial has to be adjourned.  It’s an unusual proceeding in which the plaintiff sues in respect of a needle stick injury sustained while cleaning premises in Brisbane which she had taken for the purposes of a holiday here.  According to the pleadings she was dissatisfied with the state of cleanliness there and invited by the manager to clean it herself in the course of doing which she pricked her finger on a needle lodged in a staircase inside her unit.

There is, apparently, a contest as to whether it was a
hypodermic syringe, which the plaintiff says, or an ordinary
sewing needle which Mr Morgan for the defendant says his witness will say it was.  The offending item has gone missing.

The accident happened on the 20th of April 2009.  From an
early stage it was clear that psychiatric consequences had
flowed for the plaintiff.  That's not necessarily surprising.  The courts are all too used to proceedings in
which they hear of the severe stresses that blight the people who fear they may have unwittingly contracted HIV or similar suffer.

The claim comes under the Civil Liability Act 2003. Dr Byth's psychiatric report for the plaintiff of the 22nd of April 2010 indicates a PIRS of 17 per cent, a figure which wasn't reviewed in the following report, the 15th of September 2010.

The defendant required the plaintiff to be examined by
another psychiatrist, Professor Whiteford, who reported on
1st of December 2010.  By that date, the court's told,
the plaintiff had been conclusively cleared of HIV-like
complications and Dr Whiteford expected that her
difficulties would settle.

On the 8th of March 2012, that is 6 days ago, Dr Byth reviewed his earlier reports, apparently in light of a serious reverse in her psychiatric state which the plaintiff had suffered on Christmas day last year.  She was admitted to various institutions for significant periods of days.  On the basis of material supplied to him Dr Byth increased his PIRS assessment to 34 per cent.

Two days ago he had the opportunity to see the plaintiff in
person.  She apparently resides out of Queensland now, so an
earlier assessment might not have been possible.  In
consequence of that examination Dr Byth increased his PIRS
assessment to 57 per cent.  His new report got to the
defendant's advisors only yesterday afternoon.  The
importance of a PIRS assessment and the consequential ISV in
proceedings like the present, subject to the Act, is prima
facie extremely important in determining the amount of a damages award.

Mr Kimmins, representing the plaintiff, accepts that there
will be several tens of thousands of dollars involved in the
increase.  Professor Whiteford has never ventured a PIRS
assessment.  Mr Kimmins has fairly told the court that under
the legislation he will not be able to do so without
examining the plaintiff for the purpose.  Although available
to discuss matters with legal representatives Professor
Whiteford is apparently unable to see the plaintiff until
some time in the middle of May.

I accept from Mr Kimmins that Dr Whiteford has not expressed
the view that it is necessary for him to see the plaintiff
again to be able to comment on the significant new material
that's now arrived relating to the admissions to various
institutions in South Australia and reports of treating GPs.

The court's been told that the information now available
refers to additional stressors over and above the injury for
which the defendant might be responsible contributing to
the plaintiff's condition which, for the moment, seems very
difficult.  These include illnesses in the family and
suggestions of child abuse.

Given that the defendant is anxious to have Professor
Whiteford examine the plaintiff again, and that it's the
defendant who will have to pay any damages assessed for
payment to the plaintiff, it seems to me that it's the
defendant's wishes in this matter that are important rather
than the views that Professor Whiteford might have or might
not have expressed on the telephone to Mr Kimmins.

A further amended statement of claim was received yesterday
by the defendant.  In the circumstances rehearsed it
increases the claim by nearly $300,000 from $387,400 to
$685,729.

The dimensions of the proceeding have changed considerably.
Although it may be the case that the defendant has had some
months’ notice of the South Australian admissions, the
documents generated have become available only very recently
and some which may well prove to be important, although
Mr Kimmins says on his analysis are not so important, have
substantial portions blacked out.  The defendant's solicitors have been able by pursuing other avenues to
obtain complete documents.

There has been, in my view, something of a quantum leap in
the matters which the defendant has to deal with to the
extent that I think the court has no real option, if there is to be a trial which is fair to it as well as to the plaintiff, but to accede to Mr Morgan's request for an adjournment which will accordingly be granted so that the trial occurs on the 12th, 13th and 14th of June.

...

I will simply adjourn it to the June sittings.

...

HIS HONOUR:  Reserve the costs.

...

-----