Your No Win No Fee
Accident Injury
Compensation
Lawyers Canberra

Recent Cases

The following page lists some of the recent court cases won by GMP Accident Injust Compensation Lawyers in the ACT.

Caroline Becker –v- Queensland Investment Corporation and Bovis Lend Lease Pty Limited

Personal Injury Claim involving a Public Liability incident that occurred on or about October, 2002.

The Plaintiff was injured when a petition along side the corridor she was using to walk into the Canberra centre collapsed injuring her and she sued for injuries.  Ultimately, the Judge hearing the matter in the ACT allocated a total sum of $382,000.00 broken down as follows:-

a.         General damages (pain and suffering)      $70,000.00
b.         Interest on general damages for past       $  7,350.00
c.         Treatment expenses – past treatment      $  3,560.00
d.         Treatment expenses – Future                  $27,400.00
e.         Loss of earning capacity – past wages     $73,000.00
f.          Interest on past wage loss                      $23,000.00
g.         Future wage loss                                   $37,000.00
h.         Gratuitous services i.e homecare - past   $91,000.00
i.          Interest on past provision                        $28,500.00
j.          Future provision of homecare service        $27,000.00
total                                                                $382,000.00

Additional to this amount would be legal costs.

This is a very good overview of how a Judge can award damages in Public Liability matters, further details of the case can be found in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory case number 560 of 2005.  This matter was ultimately heard before the court and Judgement given on the 12th October, 2009.

NO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - DRIVER'S DUTY OF CARE

Fleming v Shoobridge (2009) 53 MVR 138 (ACT SC Harper M)

In Fleming, the plaintiff was standing at the passenger's side of a car talking to the driver, with his left hand through the front passenger door handle. The plaintiff moved back from the car as the driver drove off but his left hand had not been removed from the door handle and he was dragged a short distance, suffering injury. Master Harper held that the driver was in breach of her duty of care to the plaintiff, who was not guilty of contributory negligence.

See the full judgment here.

ACT COURT OF APPEAL CONFIRMS MASTER'S EXTENSION OF TIME

On 10 July 2009, Justice Buchanan had overturned the Master's decision granting Mr Laws an extension of time in which to commence a common law personal injury claim against his former employer. Justice Buchanan considered that the Master had applied the wrong test and had not properly considered the onus borne by Mr Laws to establish that it was just and reasonable to extend the time.

Justice Buchan's judgment, Web Scaffolding Pty Ltd v Laws, can be found here.

Dust Disease client Case Summary 1

Our client had previously seen other solicitors and claims were lodged on my client’s behalf but were returned unsuccessfully. The client then came to Gerard Malouf and Partners in respect of a Dust Disease Claim. We were able to review his application, obtain various statements, organize various medical investigations, prepare a significant chronology identify his exposure and lodge a claim through the Dust Diseases Tribunal against his employer. Not only were we successful, but received a significant lump sum for our client. Our client received almost $200,000.

Additionally we were able to obtain a pension for a weekly benefit to our client from the Dust Diseases Board as well as a lump sum payment upon our clients death to his Widow an amount of $233,700.00. One of the special factors of this case was the size of the exposure to the asbestos materials in this case our client was exposed to Asbestos for a period less than 1 month during which he was responsible for the removal of asbestos materials from various sites.
We obtained expert evidence in relation to his exposure being sufficient enough to be considered to have caused Mesothelioma.

Dust Disease client Case Summary 2

The second matter was a much more straight forward matter, our client had been diagnosed with Mesothelioma in 2008 after working for an employer for over 30 years. We were able to obtain instructions by visiting our client at his home due to his health. He was unable to travel and within a period of three weeks was able to file a statement of claim and have the matter listed in the Dust Disease Tribunal. We have obtained the Dust Disease Board file, medical reports as well as a statement from his wife.  The client has two previous employers. As Mesothelioma is an indivisible disease we are allowed to make a claim against one of the employers we believe substantially contributed to our client’s condition.

We are able to priorities various matters depending on the requirements for our client. Urgent applications can be completed within hours of receiving instructions. Cases are determined as to urgency based on our clients condition.