What happened
On 31 July 2016, the plaintiff was a front-seat passenger when a vehicle leaving a service station struck the side of her car. She developed neck and back pain, and the Court found that the collision aggravated previously asymptomatic spinal degeneration. She had, however, barely worked for about five years before the accident, with outdated beauty-therapy skills and pre-existing psychological difficulties affecting her prospects.
The issues
The defendant admitted breach of duty but disputed the extent to which the accident caused the claimed symptoms and unemployment. The Court had to identify the additional disability caused by the collision and compare her likely earning capacity with and without it. It also considered the contingent need for spinal surgery and paid domestic help.
The court's decision
The Court accepted continuing neck and lumbar soft-tissue injuries, aggravation of spinal degeneration and a limited exacerbation of adjustment disorder, but rejected accident causation for the shoulder and hip complaints. It allowed AUD 25,000.00 for past economic loss and AUD 110,000.00 for future earning-capacity loss, each inclusive of superannuation. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff with costs, with agreed short minutes required to account for advance payments.
Understanding the figures
The historical assessment totalled AUD 193,246.80: past expenses of AUD 40,246.80, future expenses of AUD 15,000.00, past economic loss of AUD 25,000.00, future earning-capacity loss of AUD 110,000.00 and future paid assistance of AUD 3,000.00. Section 83 advances of AUD 33,116.80 had to be credited against past expenses, leaving AUD 7,130.00 under that head. The Court required short minutes reflecting the credit, so the assessment total should not be presented as the final net payment.
What this case shows
A poor employment history does not eliminate a compensable loss of the earning capacity a person still had. The valuation must nevertheless reflect the actual work history, treatment prospects, retraining needs and chances of obtaining employment. Here the buffers recognised an additional loss without treating all post-accident unemployment as accident-caused.
Why another case may differ
This assessment concerned a 2016 accident under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. Non-economic loss was unavailable because the plaintiff had not been assessed above 10% whole person impairment. The multiple-sclerosis diagnosis was not itself treated as a pre-existing reduction in earning capacity, and the stated assessment is not a verified final cash recovery after advances.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →