Rodriguez & Sons Pty Limited v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority t/as Seqwater (No 29) [2021] NSWSC 483

Rodriguez & Sons Pty Limited v Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority t/as Seqwater (No 29) [2021] NSWSC 483

PDRF Round 3 payments are not made to compensate specific loss and are not to be taken into account in calculating interest on damages awarded; joint owners each entitled to damages for physical inconvenience.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Representative Action / Consequential Orders Following Judgment on Common Legal and Damages Issues
Outcome
Orders made as set out in judgment; determination that PDRF payments are not to be taken into account in calculation of interest; separate judgments for named group members.
Legal Topics
['damages' 'interest on Damages' 'flood Compensation' 'representative Actions']
['common Law'] ['damages' 'interest on Damages' 'flood Compensation' 'representative Actions']

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

Representative Action / Consequential Orders Following Judgment on Common Legal and Damages Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether PDRF Round 3 payments should be taken into account in calculation of interest on damages' 'Whether joint owners are each entitled to damages for physical inconvenience']

Ratio Decidendi

PDRF Round 3 payments are not made to compensate specific loss and are not to be taken into account in calculating interest on damages awarded; joint owners each entitled to damages for physical inconvenience.

Court Disposition

Orders made as set out in judgment; determination that PDRF payments are not to be taken into account in calculation of interest; separate judgments for named group members.

Orders

  • ["Question whether PDRF Round 3 payments should be taken into account in calculation of interest determined separately and answered 'No'." 'Judgment for Ms Sharon Leanne Visser against the First Defendant in the sum of $151,279.17.' 'Judgment for Ms Lynette Joy Lynch against the First Defendant in the sum of...