Youssef v Eckersley & Anor - [2024] QSC 35

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Youssef v Eckersley & Anor [2024] QSC 35

PARTIES:
CHADI YOUSSEF
(plaintiff)
v
GRAHAM RAYMOND ECKERSLEY
(first defendant)

v
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
(ABN 15 000 122 850)
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 11195 of 2019

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil

DELIVERED ON:

15 March 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 May 2023 to 5 May 2023 and 31 October 2023

JUDGES:

Wilson J

ORDER:

1.   Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $85,466.56.

2.   The question of costs is adjourned.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – PERSONAL INJURY – INCOME LOSS AND LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff suffered physical injuries in a motor vehicle accident, including cervical spine and lumbar spine injuries, and psychological injuries – where liability for injuries is admitted – where quantum of damage is disputed – whether the plaintiff’s psychiatric sequalae is causally linked to the accident – whether the plaintiff can recover damages for loss of earning capacity

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)
Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld)

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312
Edwards v Hourigan and Others [1968] Qd R 202
Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340
Love v North Goonyella Coal Mines Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 140
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1; [1995] HCA 5
Nichols v Curtis [2010] QCA 303
Stephens v Hoey Fry Pty Ltd [1963] QWN 39
Sutton v Hunter & Anor (2022) 102 MVR 343; [2022] QCA 208
Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537; [2010] HCA 12

COUNSEL:

The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf
G O’Driscoll for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf
McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the second defendant

Table of Contents

The claim

The trial

The plaintiff’s circumstances

Academic qualifications and relevant employment history

Spinal injury and facial injuries

Medical records

Previous x-rays

The plaintiff’s account of his symptoms

Dr Theile – plastic surgeon (called by the plaintiff)

Dr Labrom – orthopaedic surgeon (called by the plaintiff)

Dr Todman – neurologist (called by the plaintiff)

Dr Dickinson – orthopaedic surgeon (called by the second defendant)

Head injury and mental health disorder

Dr Todman (called by the plaintiff)

Professor Whiteford – psychiatrist (called by the plaintiff)

Dr Lovell – forensic psychiatrist (called by the second defendant)

Causation

The assessment of damages

General damages

Past economic loss

Interest on past economic loss

Past loss of superannuation

Future economic loss

Past special damages

Future special damages

The claim

On 22 December 2016, Graham Raymond Eckersley (the first defendant) pulled out of a shopping centre carpark and drove in front of Dr Chadi Youssef (the plaintiff) who was riding his motorcycle along Hamilton Road, McDowall. The plaintiff was knocked off his motorcycle and he was subsequently transported by ambulance to the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital.
At the hospital, it was noted that the plaintiff had a…

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 Youssef v Eckersley & Anor

Details

AGLC: Youssef v Eckersley & Anor [2024] QSC 35
Case: [2024] QSC 35
Decision Date: 15 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Youssef v Eckersley & Anor involved a plaintiff who had suffered physical and psychological injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant admitted liability for the injuries, but the quantum of damages remained in dispute. The plaintiff sought compensation for loss of earning capacity, amongst other things. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's psychiatric sequelae were causally linked to the accident and if the plaintiff could recover damages for loss of earning capacity.

The court found that the plaintiff's psychiatric injuries were indeed a result of the accident. The court considered the plaintiff's pre-existing mental health issues and found that the accident had exacerbated them. The court also found that the plaintiff's loss of earning capacity was a direct result of the accident, and that the plaintiff would have been able to earn more had it not been for the accident. The court considered the plaintiff's age, experience, and earning capacity before and after the accident in making this determination.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of $85,466.56. The court found that the plaintiff's loss of earning capacity was the most significant factor in determining the quantum of damages. The court also considered the plaintiff's pain and suffering, and the impact of the injuries on the plaintiff's life. The court found that the plaintiff's psychological injuries had a significant impact on his life and awarded damages accordingly.

The court adjourned the question of costs, leaving it to be determined at a later date. The court's decision provides guidance on the assessment of damages in personal injury cases, particularly where psychiatric injuries are involved. The court's finding that the plaintiff's psychiatric injuries were causally linked to the accident is significant, as it allows for compensation for these types of injuries in appropriate cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $85,466.56.

2. The question of costs is adjourned.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Youssef v Eckersley & Anor [2024] QSC 35
PARTIES:	CHADI YOUSSEF (plaintiff) v GRAHAM RAYMOND ECKERSLEY (first defendant) v ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED (ABN 15 000 122 850) (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 11195 of 2019
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Civil
DELIVERED ON:	15 March 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 May 2023 to 5 May 2023 and 31 October 2023
JUDGES:	Wilson J
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $85,466.56. 2. The question of costs is adjourned.
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – PERSONAL INJURY – INCOME LOSS AND LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff suffered physical injuries in a motor vehicle accident, including cervical spine and lumbar spine injuries, and psychological injuries – where liability for injuries is admitted – where quantum of damage is disputed – whether the plaintiff’s psychiatric sequalae is causally linked to the accident – whether the plaintiff can recover damages for loss of earning capacity Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld) Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312 Edwards v Hourigan and Others [1968] Qd R 202 Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340 Love v North Goonyella Coal Mines Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 140 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1; [1995] HCA 5 Nichols v Curtis [2010] QCA 303 Stephens v Hoey Fry Pty Ltd [1963] QWN 39 Sutton v Hunter & Anor (2022) 102 MVR 343; [2022] QCA 208 Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537; [2010] HCA 12
COUNSEL:	The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf G O’Driscoll for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:	The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the second defendant