Thiering v Daly (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1585

Thiering v Daly (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1585

The Court rejected the LCS Authority's submission that the separate questions should be answered only briefly, because the claims extended to the date of judgment or settlement and the questions involved complexities requiring fuller answers. The Court answered the separate questions as set out in paragraph [16], declined in its discretion to make declarations, and ordered that the plaintiffs' costs be paid by the first and second defendants, with each defendant bearing its own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Common Law; Consequential Orders / Hearing on Answers to Separate Questions and Costs Following Principal Judgment
Outcome
Separate questions answered; declarations refused; plaintiffs awarded costs of the motion and hearing of separate issues against the first and second defendants.
Legal Topics
['answers to Separate Questions' 'gratuitous Care and Assistance' 'attendant Care Services' 'reasonable Expenses' 'standing' 'declaratory Relief' 'costs Follow the Event']
['motor Accidents Compensation' 'lifetime Care and Support' 'civil Procedure' 'costs' 'personal Injury'] ['answers to Separate Questions' 'gratuitous Care and Assistance' 'attendant Care Services' 'reasonable Expenses' 'standing' 'declaratory Relief' 'costs Follow the Event']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Common Law; Consequential Orders / Hearing on Answers to Separate Questions and Costs Following Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the LCS Authority had an obligation under the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Act 2006 (NSW) to pay for gratuitous care and assistance provided by Mrs Thiering to Mr Thiering up to the date of judgment.' 'Whether gratuitous care and assistance was an expense incurred by or on behalf of the injured person within the meaning of s 6(1) of the LCS Act.' 'Whether Part 8 of the Lifetime Care and Support Guidelines authorised the LCS Authority to decline payment for inactive sleepovers by a family member.' 'Whether Mrs Thiering had standing to bring and maintain proceedings against the LCS Authority.' 'Whether, on the proper construction of section 130A of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, Mr Thiering had any entitlement against the first defendant other than damages for non-economic loss and loss of earning capacity.' 'Whether declarations should be made reflecting answers to separate questions.' 'What costs orders should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court rejected the LCS Authority's submission that the separate questions should be answered only briefly, because the claims extended to the date of judgment or settlement and the questions involved complexities requiring fuller answers. The Court answered the separate questions as set out in paragraph [16], declined in its discretion to make declarations, and ordered that the plaintiffs' costs be paid by the first and second defendants, with each defendant bearing its own costs.

Court Disposition

Separate questions answered; declarations refused; plaintiffs awarded costs of the motion and hearing of separate issues against the first and second defendants.

Orders

  • ['That the separate questions be answered in the manner set forth in paragraph [16].' 'The first and second defendants to pay the costs of the motion and hearing of separate issues of the first and second plaintiffs.' 'Each of the first and second defendants are to pay their own costs of the motion and hearings.']