Raines v Amaca Pty Ltd & Seltsam Pty Limited [2017] NSWDDT 16
The plaintiff established the statutory entitlement under s 15B. Before diagnosis he provided gratuitous domestic services to Robyn and Richard, both dependants incapable of performing the services themselves, and there was a reasonable expectation and reasonable need for services exceeding the statutory threshold. Richard's workers' compensation position did not make the family care arrangement unreasonable and did not amount to a prior recovery of damages for Percy's loss of capacity. Section 15B(6) did not defeat the claim for either Richard or Robyn. After accounting for overlap between dependants, passive and active care, and a 10% allowance for future vicissitudes, the plaintiff was...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 December 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Dust Diseases Personal Injury Damages Claim for Mesothelioma / Principal Judgment After Hearing on Remaining S 15 B Civil Liability Act 2002 Issue, Later Amended Under the Slip Rule
- Outcome
- Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,479,000; defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs; stay granted conditional upon payment of $470,000.
- Legal Topics
- ['mesothelioma' 'loss of Capacity to Provide Gratuitous Domestic Services to Dependants' 'past Care' 'future Care' 'active Care' 'passive Care' 'reasonable Need' 'vicissitudes']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Dust Diseases Personal Injury Damages Claim for Mesothelioma / Principal Judgment After Hearing on Remaining S 15 B Civil Liability Act 2002 Issue, Later Amended Under the Slip Rule
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the plaintiff satisfied s 15B(2) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 for loss of capacity to provide gratuitous domestic services to his dependants, including whether the six hours per week threshold and reasonable need requirement were met.' "Whether the plaintiff's claim in relation to Richard was defeated because Richard was entitled to or had received workers' compensation benefits for care." 'Whether s 15B(6) prevented recovery on the basis that a dependant had previously recovered damages in respect of the loss of capacity.' 'How to assess past and future care where there were two dependants and, in relation to Richard, more than one carer.' 'What allowance should be made for vicissitudes in respect of future services.']
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff established the statutory entitlement under s 15B. Before diagnosis he provided gratuitous domestic services to Robyn and Richard, both dependants incapable of performing the services themselves, and there was a reasonable expectation and reasonable need for services exceeding the statutory threshold. Richard's workers' compensation position did not make the family care arrangement unreasonable and did not amount to a prior recovery of damages for Percy's loss of capacity. Section 15B(6) did not defeat the claim for either Richard or Robyn. After accounting for overlap between dependants, passive and active care, and a 10% allowance for future vicissitudes, the plaintiff was...
Court Disposition
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,479,000; defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs; stay granted conditional upon payment of $470,000.
Orders
- ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,479,000.' "The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs." 'Stay granted conditional upon payment of the sum of $470,000.' 'Corrections were made under the slip rule on 14 May 2018.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment