Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QDC
  3. 2013
  4. Parsons v Mitchell - [2013] QDC 57

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Parsons v Mitchell[2013] QDC 57

Parsons v Mitchell[2013] QDC 57

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Parsons v Mitchell [2013] QDC 57

PARTIES:

KEIRNAN JAMES PARSONS

(Applicant)

V

LUKE DANIEL MITCHELL

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3570 of 2009

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 March 2013 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 March 2013

JUDGE:

Irwin DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $21, 000 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of grievous bodily harm, which led to the conviction of the respondent in the District Court at Brisbane on 10 June 2009.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – TIME – DELAY SINCE LAST PROCEEDING – where the applicant commenced proceedings under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) on 9 December 2009 – where on 16 February 2010 the applicant’s solicitors wrote to the respondent enclosing – affidavits to be relied upon in support of the application – where on 18 July 2011 the applicant’s solicitor disclosed to the respondent’s solicitor a medical report about the respondent to be relied on in support of the application – where on 21 October 2011 two further medical reports relied upon in support of the application were forwarded to the respondent’s solicitor – whether the delivery of these documents constituted a step in the action – whether, in the event the delivery of these documents did not constitute a step in the action, leave should be granted to the applicant to proceed.

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGEMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION , REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – where the respondent was convicted of grievous bodily harm – where the applicant suffered physical injuries – where as a result of a single blow the applicant suffered bruising over an eye, swelling over his cheek bone, a fracture of the nasal bone which required surgical repair and a left orbital floor fracture which also required surgical repair – whether the offence of grievous bodily harm materially contributed to these injuries – whether these injuries were more appropriately assessed by global assessment than an assessment in relation to each injury – where the applicant also suffered double vision which had resolved by the time of sentence – whether the respondent’s assault caused the applicant to suffer a recognised psychiatric illness or disorder constituting mental or nervous shock.

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) (repealed), s 20, s 21, s 22, s 24, s 25, s 26, s 30, Schedule 1.

Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld) (repealed), s 2. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 105 (1), r 389 (2).

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), s 149, s 155 (1) (a),

s 155 (2) (b).

AT v FG [2004] QCA 295, applied.

Boyd-Bush v Braden [2010] QDC 348, cited.

Citicorp Australia Ltd v Metropolitan Public Abattoir [1992] Qd R 592, cited.

Concord Park Pty Ltd v Allied Organik Ltd [2003] QDC 420, applied.

Darben v Appleton [2010] QDC 231, cited.

Franklin v Timu [2007] QDC 237, cited. Hannington v Chapman [2012] QSC 257, applied. Hong v Gosbee & Anor [2011] QDC 231, cited.

JMR obo SRR v Hornsby [2009] QDC 147, cited.

JS v Graveur [2012] QCA 196, applied. Madden v Merlo [2009] QDC 185, cited. Palmer v Hollows [2009] QDC 185, cited.

R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] Qd R 436, cited.

Riddle v Coffey (2002) 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337, cited.

RMC v NAC [2010] 1 Qd R 395; [2009] QSC 149, cited.

SAY v AZ; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2007] 2QdR 295; [2006] QCA 462, applied.

Tyler v Custom Credit Corp Ltd [2000] QCA 179, applied.

Wren v Gaulai [2008] QCA 148, cited.

Zaicov & McKenna v Jones [2001] QCA 442, cited.

COUNSEL:

S. A. Olsen (solicitor) for the applicant.

P. Goodwin for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Murphy Schmidt Solicitors for the applicant.

Laurie Watling Solicitor for the respondent.

Introduction:

  1. [1]
    The applicant seeks compensation pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act [1995] (Qld) (The Act), for physical and emotional injuries caused by the respondent's headbutt to the left side of his face, on 27 June, 2008.

Jurisdiction:

  1. [2]
    The Act was repealed by section 149 of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act [2009] (Qld) (The 2009 Act), which commenced on 1 December, 2009.
  2. [3]
    The transitional provision in section 155(1)(a) of the 2009 Act, requires the application to be determined in accordance with the Act, as it was made on 9 December, 2009. This was within two months after the commencement of the 2009 Act, as required by section 155(2)(b), it being the earlier of the dates required in that sub-section.
  3. [4]
    On 10 June, 2009, the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm. I sentenced him to 12 months imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of 18 months.
  1. [5]
    I am satisfied, on the basis of Mr Robison's affidavit, the originating summons was served personally on the respondent in accordance with rule 105(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules [1999](UCPR) on 22 January, 2010. The originating summons at this time provided the application would be heard on a date to be fixed. Subsequently, it was listed for hearing before me on 29 January, 2010.
  1. [6]
    However, on 21 January, 2010, the applicant's solicitors wrote to the respondent advising of this date, and it was intended to adjourn the application to enable a report to be received from Dr Sullivan, an ophthalmologist, about the applicant's injuries.This letter requested the respondent sign and return a consent adjournment application.He did so.This document was filed on 25 January, 2010. As a result,the hearing was de-listed.
  1. [7]
    On 16 February, 2010, the applicant's solicitor wrote to the respondent enclosing copies of the consent adjournment application which had been filed, and the affidavits by Mr Robison and Dr Yuen.
  1. [8]
    Almost two years passed until a request was made on or about 11 February, 2013, for the application to be re-listed at a time suitable to me. As a consequence, it was re-listed for 9 a.m. today, 8 March, 2013. This was to allow the applicant's solicitor sufficient time to notify the respondent of the hearing, and to file and serve all evidence to be relied upon.It was also intended to give the respondent sufficient time to consider the material, and to respond if he wished to do so.
  1. [9]
    On or about 29 June, 2011, Mr Wattling of Laurie Wattling Solicitors, had advised the applicant solicitor he was assisting the respondent in defending a claim arising out of the circumstances to which this application relates; which was the subject of a part 1 notice of claim form and statutory declaration, which had been forwarded to the respondent on 17 May, 2010.
  1. [10]
    Mr Wattling requested any further correspondence be directed to him. On or about 25 February, 2013, the applicant's solicitor left a telephone message for Mr Wattling to contact him as soon as possible On or about 27 February, 2013, the applicant's solicitor advised the respondent's father by phone about this, and of the hearing date. He requested the respondent's father to advise the respondent accordingly, and to have Mr Wattling call him as soon as possible.
  1. [11]
    On or about 28 February, 2013, the applicant's solicitor was able to advise Mr Wattling about the hearing. This was confirmed in writing on this date.
  1. [12]
    The letter enclosed medical records from Doctors Sullivan and Lynham, St Andrews War Memorial Hospital, the Mater Private Hospital, the Caboolture Hospital and the Royal Brisbane and Womens Hospital.
  1. [13]
    Files from the Department of Justice and Attorney-General and the Queensland Police Service, together with the transcript of the sentencing proceedings and my sentencing remarks, were also enclosed.
  1. [14]
    On 5 March, 2012, the affidavit and submissions by the applicant's solicitor were filed; documents totally 219 pages including the medical reports relied on, were exhibited to the affidavit. The affidavit and submissions had been emailed to the respondent on the previous day. By letter of 5 March, 2013, the affidavit and submissions were forwarded to the respondent's solicitor by express post.
  1. [15]
    By letter of 7 March, 2013, copies of a further affidavit of the applicant's solicitor and the applicant's affidavit, both sworn on that date, were forwarded to the respondent's solicitor by email.
  1. [16]
    Mr Goodwin of counsel, who appeared instructed by Mr Wattling, to represent the respondent at the hearing, accepts that service has been properly effected. He takes no issue under rule 389(1) of the UCPR that the applicant was required to give a month's notice to the respondent about the intention to proceed; even if no step had been taken in the proceedings for one year from the time the last step was taken.

Leave to Proceed:

  1. [17]
    Rule 389(2) of the UCPR provides that:

"If no step has been taken in a proceeding for two years from the time the last step was taken, a new step may not be taken without the order of the Court, which may be made either with or without notice".

  1. [18]
    In Concord Park Pty Ltd v. Allied Organik Ltd [2003] QDC 420 at [5], McGill QC DCJ concluded that the decision of Citicorp Australia Ltd v. Metropolitan Public Abattoir Board [1992] QdR 592 was authority for, interalia, the delivery of copies of documents constitute a step in the action.
  1. [19]
    In the present case, the proceeding was commenced on 9 December, 2009, and the originating summons was served personally on the respondent on 22 January, 2010. On 21 January, the applicant's solicitors wrote to the respondent advising that the application would be heard on 29 January, 2010.
  1. [20]
    However, on 25 January, 2010, a consent adjournment application was filed, resulting in the hearing being de-listed, as I have observed.
  1. [21]
    On 16 February, 2010, the applicant's solicitors wrote to the respondent enclosing copies of the consent adjournment application and affidavits from Mr Robison and Dr Yuen.
  1. [22]
    Applying the decision in Concord Park, I consider this was a step in the action. Therefore, rule 389(2) would only apply if no step had been taken before 17 January, 2012.
  1. [23]
    The applicant's solicitor argues that the disclosure on 18 July, 2011, to the respondent's solicitor of Dr Pane's report of his review of the applicant, is a step in the action. This report is part of the evidence relied upon in support of the application. Applying the decision of Concord Park, I agree.
  1. [24]
    In addition, on 21 October, 2011, the medical reports of Dr Sullivan of 26 November, 2010, and 29 July, 2011, which are also part of the evidence now relied upon, were forwarded to the respondent's solicitor. This was also a step in the action.
  1. [25]
    Given that further documents relevant to the application were disclosed to the respondent's solicitors on or about 28 February, 2013, and the application is being heard on 8 March, 2013, this is not a case where no step was taken in the proceeding for two years from the time the last step was taken. Therefore, the Court's leave, under rule 389(2) is not required.
  1. [26]
    Alternatively, I would grant leave to proceed pursuant to that section, even if no step was taken in two years. While the application has been characterised by periods of delay, this is through no fault of the applicant. Until 5 August, 2011, the delay was occasioned by Dr Sullivan not providing his medico-legal report, which was first requested on or about 7 October, 2009.
  1. [27]
    In turn, this was due to further investigations which were required for on-going investigation of the applicant's eye injury by Dr Sullivan, including a referral to Dr Pane.
  1. [28]
    There was further delay occasioned in attempting to obtain the applicant's records from a medical centre from 26 February, 2010. On 6 January, 2012, these records had still not been released due to an argument about the reasonable fee for doing so.
  1. [29]
    In addition, it was necessary for the applicant to be referred to Dr Stark for electro-physiological tests in support of his application. Dr Stark's report was received on 6 September, 2012.
  1. [30]
    To apply the reasoning of Daubney J in Hannington v. Chapman [2012] QSC 257 at [13], the applicant has a patent statutory claim against respondent. It is true there have been periods of delay, but I am satisfied on the material before me, that these periods of delay are in no way attributable to the applicant personally. Unlike that case, the respondent was represented at the hearing before me. However, no submissions were made on his behalf as to any possible prejudice.
  1. [31]
    Further, as his Honour said:

"It is, however, difficult to see how any sensible submission could be made to the effect that the respondent has suffered prejudice as a result of the delay. This is an application for criminal injuries compensation, in which "the judge should take a view of the evidence consistent with that taken at sentencing." This highlights the unlikelihood of a successful submission that the delay has caused prejudice to the respondent on the issue of his liability to pay compensation for injuries properly attributed to the offence he committed".

  1. [32]
    As his Honour said at [14] "The Court's discretion under rule 389(2) is not fettered by rigid rules". Having regard to this, and also to the factors which ought properly be taken into account on such an application, as to which see Tyler v. Custom Credit Corp Ltd [2000] QCA 178, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for me to grant leave to proceed.
  1. [33]
    I turn then to the substantive application.

Circumstances of the Offence:

  1. [34]
    The Crown Prosecutor described the circumstances of the offence as follows:

"In February, 2008, the complainant and the prisoner had a confrontation at the Morayfield Shopping Centre. There was no contact between the two until June, 2008, when the prisoner was in the car park of Supercheap Auto where he had two vehicles on display.

  1. [35]
    The complainant, together with his friends, also attended at the car show. The complainant was looking at one of the prisoner's vehicles, when the prisoner approached him from the rear of the door, and stood face to face with the complainant.
  1. [36]
    Words were exchanged between the two, from which inference could be drawn that a fight may occur. The complainant states that he had said to the prisoner that he did not wish to fight as there were children present. However, the prisoner contends that it was he who made this statement, which is also supported by the other Crown witnesses, including the friends of the complainant.
  1. [37]
    The complainant states that he had given a reason as to why he did not wish to fight, in that he had been recently released from hospital. This is agreed by the friends of the complainant, but they stated that this was said after the assault took place and not before.
  1. [38]
    Both had been using bad language during this episode. The complainant states that he commenced to move away by turning to his right, when he was headbutted to the left hand side of his upper face, causing him to fall back, hitting the back of his head on the ground.
  1. [40]
    The accused states that when the complainant moved away, he thought that the complainant was going to strike him. The accused still contends that he hit him in self defence in believing that he was about to be struck. The plea is on the basis that he applied excessive force in the circumstances."
  1. [41]
    The references to the complainant and the prisoner were to the applicant and the respondent respectively.
  1. [42]
    The Crown Prosecutor advised that the plea was accepted on the basis the respondent applied excessive force in the circumstances.
  1. [43]
    The circumstances were in terms of the agreed statement of facts, which was tendered. A file note by the case lawyer who sat in on conference between the Crown Prosecutor and the complainant prior to the sentence, is an exhibit to the affidavit of the applicant's solicitor. The file note, which the Prosecutor certified accurately reflects her conversations, states the applicant agreed to accept the defence's submission, as did his father, who was also present.
  1. [44]
    I expressly sentenced the respondent on the basis it was he who said he did not wish to fight because there were children present. As I observed, he at least expressed he did not wish to fight at that time and place. Importantly, I sentenced on the basis of the accepted facts that the applicant commenced to move away from the respondent, and was turning right whenthe respondent headbutted him.

Injuries and Medical Reports:

  1. [45]
    The Crown Prosecutor identified the consequent injuries to the applicant as a left orbital floor fracture, a left nasal fracture, and swelling over his left eyebrow. She described the left orbital floor fracture as a fracture to the floor of his eye socket and cheekbone.
  1. [46]
    The nasal fracture required an operation to put his nose back in place. She also said that subsequent to the commission of the offence, the complainant had a constant horizontal double vision with a small limitation of adduction, and an elevation of his left eye.
  1. [47]
    He underwent expiration of the left orbit on 6 October, 2008, to correct his double vision. This was an operation performed by Dr Sullivan. He was seen post operatively on 27 November, 2008. At that time he still had trouble with double vision, but was able to function better. I was told his treating doctor saw him on 1 June, 2009, and advised he seemed to have made a full recovery from surgery.
  1. [48]
    The Prosecutor said, the basis of the grievous bodily harm was the eye injury, because the applicant would have experienced double vision if not medically treated. In context, this is a reference to permanent double vision.
  1. [49]
    The applicant's victim impact statement of 9 June, 2009, was tendered. He said that on being headbutted, he felt overwhelming extreme pain to his face and left side. According to him, the pain was indescribably horrific. He experienced terror and rage at what had happened. He knew his nose was broken, as he was unable to breathe through it, as it was closed in, and blood was streaming from it. The region about his eye immediately became swollen in a huge way within seconds of falling to the ground. He said the fall did not cause any injury.
  1. [50]
    He was taken to the Caboolture Hospital in enormous pain. On 30 June, 2008, Dr Lynham, a maxillofacial surgeon examined him, and explained there was a risk of blindness in the left eye, and the swelling would take months to reduce. This terrified him.
  1. [51]
    He also noticed a large area of numbness to the left side of his face, extending from his forehead to just under the left of his mouth. At the time of the statement, almost 12 months after the incident, he still had minor numbness around his eye.
  1. [52]
    Dr Lynham operated on his nose on 2 July, 2008. Because he was required to pay what he described as a large amount of excess under his health cover, which he could not afford, his parents paid for this. He was to repay them.
  1. [53]
    According to him, the swelling on his left eye started subsiding very slowly after about two months. He started seeing things through it, but had very bad double vision in all eye tests, and found reading very difficult. He still suffered a great deal of pain in any left eye movement.
  1. [54]
    On 6 October, 2008, as previously mentioned, he was operated on by Dr Sullivan, an ophthalmic surgeon, for the left orbital fracture. A medpor sheet was inserted.
  1. [55]
    The operation released some captured eye muscles. He started getting some sight back following the operation, however he was aware of having something artificial inside his head and was unhappy about it being there. He said his parents had to again bear the very substantial cost of this operation, which he would have to repay.
  1. [56]
    Despite the Prosecutor having said the result of the examination on 1 June 2009 by his treating doctor, who must have been Dr Sullivan, was he seemed to have made a full recovery from surgery, the applicant asserted this examination still showed he had double vision stemming from the left eye. However, he also said the operation greatly improved the double vision.
  1. [57]
    He said that prior to this offence, he had developed substantial diagnosed depression and anxiety as a result of a work related incident in 2004. This had remained static. He was compensated by the settlement of a civil action and he received a disability support pension.
  1. [58]
    He described his mental condition on 27 June 2008 as moderately depressive and still suffering some social anxiety disorder. As a result of the offence, he said his depression deteriorated from months worrying about his eyesight and being unable to pursue recreational activities he enjoyed. He said he was more anxious in going out in public and tried to avoid places where there were too many people, or where he could be assaulted again. He did not feel safe anymore. He was very concerned of anything happening to the area of his left eye, or being punched anywhere around his face due to the amount of pain he had to endure.
  1. [59]
    Accordingly, he had difficulty sleeping due to hypervigilance. He was on Effexor and sometimes Zyprexa, to assist sleep. The victim impact statement contains the following passage:

"Both doctors have stated I have since developed possible post-traumatic stress disorder and that I may have many elements of bipolar. I've had more suicidal thoughts since the incident and have had to talk these through with both doctors, mainly Barry Cassidy."

  1. [60]
    He asserts he became much more unmotivated due to his increased depression and had not been able to seek part-time employment. In addition, he had little interest in anything in life compared to what he was like before the incident.
  1. [61]
    I discussed the disparity between his Victim Impact statement and what the Prosecutor had advised me was Dr Sullivan's opinion as to the extent of his recovery from surgery with the Prosecutor and the respondent's lawyer during the sentence proceedings. As I said to his lawyer, while recognising what the applicant said about this, the medical practitioner should be the determinant of the issue. Accordingly I said during my sentencing remarks with reference to the applicant:

"He did suffer double vision, although it does seem to have resolved."

  1. [62]
    The substance of the Victim Impact statement is confirmed in the applicant's affidavit sworn on 7 March 2013. However in this affidavit he referred to suffering from both double vision and blurred vision in his left eye as a result of the assault. He deposes that while the double vision resolved after the assault, he continued to suffer from blurred vision in the eye. He said he did not have blurred vision at the time of the assault. It is relevant that he had not made reference to blurred vision in the Victim Impact statement which I have recently summarised.
  1. [63]
    He deposed consistently with the Victim Impact statement that the numbness to the left side of his face, which extended from his forehead down the left side of his face to just under his mouth had resolved. However, he said he continued to suffer from numbness under his left eye and on the left hand side of his nose.
  1. [64]
    In his affidavit, he also asserts consistently with his statement that the injuries as a result of the assault included the aggravation of pre-existing depression and anxiety. He deposes that at the time of the assault, he was undergoing psychological treatment sessions with Mr Casey, a psychologist, for treatment of his depression and anxiety. He emphasises he became very apprehensive and cautious after the assault for fear of a similar incident happening again and as a result, he commenced to carry a piece of pipe in his vehicle to defend himself.
  1. [65]
    He also deposed he tended to avoid public places such as night clubs and hotels where there were large numbers of people, or an increased risk of violence, because he was worried a similar incident may occur. This had not been the position prior to the assault.
  1. [66]
    He was anxious about suffering further injury to his left eye, which could potentially cause him to go blind in the eye. He confirmed his difficulty sleeping, following the assault, and his lost motivation because of his increased depression and anxiety, which in turn affected his attempts to re-enter the workforce and impacted on his everyday living. He also deposed to increased aggression and anger after the assault, which caused significant friction with family members, and in particular, a strained relationship with his parents.
  1. [67]
    The affidavit of the applicant's solicitor exhibits two reports by doctors responsible for his treatment at the Caboolture Hospital. Dr Paul, who saw him in the emergency department, puts the results of his examination and a subsequent CT scan in plain English, as follows:

"He was initially agitated with pain but then very amicable and compliant. His vital signs were within normal limits. He had an objective contusion (swelling) over his left maxilla (cheek bone) a large haematoma (bruise) over his left supra- orbital ridge (eyebrow) and a clinical nasal fracture. A subsequent CT scan of his head and face demonstrated a left inferior blow-out fracture, extending to the inferior wall of his maxilla, as well as a nasal fracture.

After discussion with the maxillo-facial specialist Registrar, the patient was discharged with a course of anti-biotics and prescription for pain relief. He was booked in to the maxillo- facial specialist clinic at the Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital on Monday, 30 June 2008, for ongoing care. His injuries upon examination were consistent with the history of alleged assault; namely being headbutted to his face and would have caused moderate pain and discomfort at the time, constituting bodily harm"

  1. [68]
    This is consistent with Dr Mennsink's report of the result of a CT scan, except the reference to the inferior wall of the maxilla should be to the anterior wall. He describes the nasal fracture as a medially displaced fracture to the left nasal bone. The CT scan also refers to a prolapsed inferior rectus muscle. I understand this is one of six extra ocular muscles attached to each eyeball: see Franklin v Timu [2007] QDC 237 at [14].
  1. [69]
    On or about 27 June 2008 while at the hospital, the applicant's facial injuries were photographed. They graphically depict the swelling to his face and his completely closed left eye. As previously stated, on 2 July 2008, the applicant underwent surgery for reduction of the nasal fracture.
  1. [70]
    There is no report from the surgeon, Dr Lynham. However, the Mater Private Hospital records concerning this procedure are exhibited to the affidavit of the applicant's solicitor.
  1. [71]
    On 31 July, 2008, the applicant was examined by Dr Sullivan for the first of a number of occasions. Dr Sullivan's report at 16 December, 2012, forms part of the evidence. The applicant was referred to him by Dr Yuen, an ophthalmic surgeon. I will subsequently refer to her report.
  1. [72]
    Dr Sullivan's report indicates with reference to the initial examination of the applicant that:

"He complained of constant headaches since the assault, and nausea when looking upwards, which had caused vomiting. He described the left eye as very painful and sore, especially on eye movements. His findings were a visual acuity of 6/5(R) and 6/60+1(L). He had no abnormality of his pupil reactions. In particular, he had no relative afferent pupillary defect. He had previously been noted to be colour blind. He complained of constant horizontal double vision, but it was difficult to record a field of binocular single vision, as he complained of double vision in all fields of gaze. He had a small limitations of adduction and elevation of the left eye. A computerised tomographic (CT) scan of the orbits showed a trapdoor type blow out fracture of the left orbital floor with the inferior rectus muscle lying along the lateral aspect of the fracture".

  1. [73]
    I understand normal vision to be 6/6: see Franklin v. Timu at [5]. The applicant was re-assessed on 9 September, 2008. The clinical findings were largely unchanged, although it was unclear why the vision in the left eye was reduced to 6/60.
  1. [74]
    As previously indicated, exploration of the left orbit was undertaken on 6 October, 2008. Dr Sullivan says about this: "Findings were of a moderate sized left orbital floor fracture with prolapsed orbital tissue protruding into the left maxillary sinus. The prolapsed orbital tissue was reposited into the orbit, and the defect covered by a 0.85 millimetre thick porous polyethylene sheet".
  1. [75]
    In Dr Sullivan's letter to Dr Pane of 26 November, 2010, he refers to this as a medpor implant placed over the defect.
  1. [76]
    When the applicant was seen post operatively on 27 November, 2008, Dr Sullivan reported:

"Mr Parsons felt he had a good result from the recent surgery, stating that although he still had some trouble with double vision, he was able to function much better. His extra-ocular movements appeared full, and he did complain of some numbness around the peri-orbital region. His visual acuity in the left eye was found to be 6/24, although I could find no cause for this. His eyes were straight for distance, on cover testing, and he had a small alternating exotropia for near. I requested he see Dr Sonya Yuen who had originally referred him to me for further assessment of the visual acuity of the left eye".

  1. [77]
    Dr Yuen examined him on 15 January, 2009. Her report of 21 January, 2009, forms part of the evidence before me. It is exhibited not only to the applicant's solicitor's affidavit, but also to her own affidavit filed on 11 February, 2010.
  1. [78]
    The applicant reported to her considerable improvement in his symptoms of diplopia and discomfort in his left eye. I understand diplopia to be a reference to double vision. However, he reported continued decreased vision in the left eye, as well as residual diplopia.
  1. [79]
    The report of her examination is:

"Visual acuity without correction is 6/6 for the right eye, and 6/36 for the left eye. However, visual acuity for the left eye improved to 6/6 with plano lens. There is no afferent pupillary defect. Ocular motility is full bilaterally, and the eyes are straight in the primary gaze, both at distance and at near. Monocular diplopia is reported for the left eye in all fields of gaze, including the primary gaze. Slit lamp examination is unremarkable. Dilated Fundal examination shows healthy optic nerves with a normal macular and periphery bilaterally".

  1. [80]
    In summary, she reported:

"Stable eye examination, the improvement in visual acuity for the left eye to 6/6 with a plano lens is reassuring. The etiology for the monocular diplopia for the left eye is unclear, and there does not appear to be any acute issues at this time, as Mr Parsons reports that this is long standing".

  1. [81]
    She re-assured the applicant that the visual acuity measured for the left eye was actually normal. She offered to refer the applicant for a second opinion regarding the monocular diplopia for the left eye. However, the applicant deferred this option at that time.
  1. [82]
    However, on 26 November, 2010, Dr Sullivan referred this applicant to Dr Pane, a neuro ophthalmologist for a review of his monocular diplopia. This is the letter which I have previously mentioned. In this letter Dr Sullivan advises Dr Pane that since the operation the applicant had on-going visual disturbance, which he described as blurred vision in the left eye, as well as, definite monocular diplopia in the eye.
  1. [83]
    Dr Sullivan reports seeing the applicant again on 27 November, 2010, when his visual acuities were 6/6 for the right eye and 6/24 for the left eye. He told Dr Pane he could not: "Find any real cause for his decreased vision or blurred vision in the left eye, although in the past, it has been attributed to possible residual traumatic optic neuropathy".
  1. [84]
    Dr Pane reviewed him on 22 February, 2011. Dr Pane reported to the applicant's solicitors on 20 June, 2011, he could not find any evidence of physical damage to the left eye from the trauma. He could not find any explanation for his reported reduction in vision. However, to further explore possible reasons for the reduced vision, he attempted to arrange electro diagnostic testing for the applicant. However, the applicant cancelled this.
  1. [85]
    In summary, Dr Pane could not find any objective evidence of damage to the left eye from the trauma.
  1. [86]
    On 21 June, 2012, Dr Stark, an ophthalmic surgeon and physician performed electro physiological tests on the applicant at the request of his solicitors. His report of 6 September, 2012, shows that he was provided with the relevant hospital records and reports by Drs Sullivans, Yuen and Pane.
  1. [87]
    Dr Stark summarised his findings as follows:

"Clinically, in examining the retinal electro-physiological studies, there is no evidence of an abnormally functioning left eye. The electro-physiological examination of optic nerve function suggests equal function from each optic nerve. The responses of the visually evoked potential to small targets were abnormal for each eye. This again suggests failure to fixate the target, as was seen in the multi-focal ERG. When the vision was measured from each eye, using the AVEP, normal vision was suggested from the right eye, but the left responses did not allow evaluation of left acuity. I consider that in view of equivalent results being present in all other tests this was most likely due to failure of fixation during this test".

  1. [88]
    He concluded:

"Clinical examination and review of optic nerve and retinal studies suggests this patient has equal vision in each eye. Each retina and optic nerve appears to be functioning normally and equally. Unfortunately, objective measurement of left vision was not successful. A single test could be repeated for verification, if requested. I consider there is neither evidence at this stage of an organic abnormality of visual function, nor evidence of damage to the left eye or visual pathway".

  1. [89]
    For completeness, the AVEP objective measurement of visual acuity was 6/7.5 for the right eye, but for the reason given, the applicant's responses did not permit acuity calculation for the left eye.

Applicable principles:

  1. [90]
    The assessment of compensation is governed by Part 3 of the Act. Section 24 of the Act provides for compensation in respect of convictions on indictment of a personal offence for injuries suffered by an applicant because of that offence: JMRoboSRR v. Hornsby [2009] QDC 147 per Dearden DCJ at [6]. A personal offence is an indictable offence committed against the person of someone: Section 21 of the Act. An injury is bodily injury, mental or nervous shock, pregnancy or an injury specified in the compensation table in Schedule 1 of the Act or prescribed under a regulation: Section 20 of the Act.
  1. [91]
    An award of criminal compensation under the Act does not invoke the principles applicable to common law damages: Section 25(8)(a) of the Act. It is intended to help the applicant, not to reflect the compensation to which the applicant is otherwise entitled: Section 22(3) of the Act. A compensation order cannot be made for an amount more than the prescribed scheme maximum, presently $75,000: See section 25(2) of the Act and the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld) (the Regulation) section 2; See also Riddle v. Coffey (2002) 133 ACrimR 220; [2002] QCA 337 at [12].
  1. [92]
    An award for compensation must be made by reference to the compensation table which lists 36 different types of injury, giving each a percentage or range of percentages of the scheme maximum: section 25(3)-(4) of the Act. In deciding the amount of compensation to be paid for an injury specified under the Regulation, the Court is limited to make an order for the prescribed amount. If the injury does not come within those itemised in the compensation table or specified under a Regulation, then the Court must decide the amount of compensation by reference to the amounts paid for comparable items in the compensation table: Section 25(6) of the Act.
  1. [93]
    Section 22(4) of the Act requires compensation under the section to be calculated by assessing the injury as or similar to an item in the compensation table and placing it appropriately within the relevant range of the percentages of the scheme maximum set out in the table: Riddle v. Coffey (2002) 133 ACrimR 220 at 223; [2002] QCA 337 at [15] applying R v. Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436 at 438, 440. It follows that in such cases the amounts of compensation ordered are to be scaled within the ranges set out in the table on the basis that the maximum amount of compensation allowed in respect of each type of injury listed in the table is reserved for the most serious cases: R v. Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436 at 440.
  1. [94]
    Section 26 of the Act, read in its entirety, aims to encourage only one criminal compensation order for one episode of injury without duplication: Riddle v. Coffey at 224; and at [18]; JMRoboSRR v. Hornsby at [6]. However, it does not discourage a Judge making a criminal compensation order from calculating and adding together the appropriate amount of compensation for a number of injuries arising from one episode by reference to the relevant items in the compensation table in the manner required by section 25(3) of the Act and Ward: Riddle v. Coffey at 224; and at [18]. Accordingly, where it is practical to make separate assessments under each applicable item in the table, whilst at the same time avoiding duplication, that course should be adopted: Wren v. Gaulai [2008] QCA 148 at [24]; Hornsby at [6]. However, if an injury that is best described in one item of the compensation table is instead assessed together with another injury under another item, in order to avoid duplication it may therefore be necessary to make an adjustment to cater for the differences between the ranges or maximum for each item: Wren at [29]; Hornsby at [6].
  1. [95]
    Ultimately, the Court should ensure that there is compliance with the use of the methodology proscribed by section 25 of the Act which is mandatory: Wren at [22]; Hornsby at [6].
  1. [96]
    Section 25[7] of the Act provides that in deciding whether an amount or what amount should be ordered to be paid for an injury, the Court must have regard to everything relevant, including, for example, any behaviour by the applicant that directly or indirectly contributed to the injury.
  1. [97]
    The issues of fact on this application must be decided on the balance of probabilities: Section 30(2) of the Act.
  1. [98]
    For completeness, I add that in Zaicov & McKenna v. Jones [2001] QCA 442, Holmes J, with whom the other members of the Court agreed, held at [33] that section 25(7) comes into operation at the time when the amounts to be paid for the respective injuries are to be assessed, and not at a later stage, when the total amount payable under the order is being determined.
  1. [99]
    That is to say, it is in determining the percentage, that the Court must have regard to relevant matters including contribution.

The Applicant's Submissions:

  1. [100]
    Mr Olsen who appears for the applicant submits the applicant suffered the following injuries, and should be compensated for:

Item 2 - bruising/laceration etc. (severe) - 4 per cent - $3000.

Item 4 - fractured nose (displacement/surgery) - 12 per cent - $9000.

Item 8 - facial fracture (severe) - 24 per cent - $18,000.

Item 29 - loss of vision (one eye) - 3 per cent - $2250. Item 31 - mental or nervous shock (minor) - 3 per cent - $2250.

Therefore, an award is sought of 46 per cent of the schememaximum, which is $34,500.

Assessment:

  1. [101]
    I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, the applicant suffered the physical injuries documented in the evidence to which I have referred, as a result of the indictable offence of grievous bodily harm committed against his person by the respondent on 27 June, 2009.
  1. [102]
    I will discuss the issue of whether I am similarly satisfied in relation to the applicant's asserted emotional injuries when I address the submission the applicant be compensated for suffering mental or nervous shock.
  1. [103]
    In this case, I am satisfied that as a result of the single blow delivered to him by the respondent, the applicant suffered bruising over his left eye, and swelling over his cheekbone; a medially displaced fracture to the left nasal bone, which required surgical repair; and the left orbital floor fracture from which he sustained double vision.
  1. [104]
    In SAY v. AZ (ex parte) A-G(Qld) [2006] QCA 462, Holmes JA, with whom the other members of the Court agreed, said at [20]: "In the first instance, the Court has to decide 'whether an amount...should be ordered to be paid for an injury'. The issue there is whether, taking all relevant factors into account, the offence has materially contributed to the injury".
  1. [105]
    Consistently with this approach, her Honour said at [22]: "In arriving at the amount of a compensation order, only those injuries to which the relevant offence has materially contributed, will be compensable".
  1. [106]
    In this case, the relevant offence of grievous bodily harm has materially contributed to the three specific injuries which I have identified. All are compensable, subject to the question of quantification. The compensation is not limited to the eye injury, which if not treated would have resulted in the complainant experiencing permanent double vision. This is particularly so where each identifiable injury was caused by the single blow which caused the eye injury.
  1. [107]
    This approach is consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Wren, where the issue was whether the award of compensation to the applicant for injuries suffered because of the offence of doing grievous bodily harm was manifestly inadequate.
  1. [108]
    As set out at [12], the injuries were:

"The applicant's injuries consisted of major facial bruising; fractures of the zygoma maxilla, eye socket, and nose; extensive laceration through the right eyebrow and over the nasal bridge; and injuries to both eyeballs. On 4 December, 2002, the applicant underwent open reduction and internal fixation of the zygoma and attempted re-attachment of the right anterior ligament, exploration and reconstruction. It was noted by Dr Blackstone that had the injuries been left untreated, they would have resulted in gross facial disfigurement, permanent double vision, and possible life threatening infections.".

  1. [109]
    Fraser JA, with whom the other members of the Court agreed, held it was practical in that case to make an assessment in relation to the bruising and laceration separately from the assessment of other injuries described in the table, and allowed 3 per cent of the scheme maximum for this item. This is despite the fact the bruising and laceration would not in isolation have constituted grievous bodily harm. However, as in the present case, the offence of grievous bodily harm materially contributed to that injury.
  1. [110]
    The similar approach has been adopted in decisions by Judges of this Court where the offence to which the application related was grievous bodily harm. Therefore, compensation was assessed for bruising and laceration in Madden v. Merlo [2009] QDC 118; Palmer v. Hollows [2009] QDC 185; Darben v. Appleton [2010] QDC 231; Boyd-Bush v. Braden [2010] QDC 348; and Hong v. Gosbee & Anor [2011] QDC 231.
  1. [111]
    In addition, in Wren the Court left undisturbed the award of compensation for the psychological sequelae constituting mental or nervous shock as a consequence of the incident constituting the grievous bodily. This was also the case in each of the District Court decisions I have referred to.
  1. [112]
    Accordingly, I proceed to assess compensation in relation to each of these injuries.
  1. [113]
    In my view, given the injuries relied upon by the applicant as constituting the bruising/laceration etc. (severe), fractured nose (displacement/surgery) and facial fracture (severe), are facial injuries arising from a single blow, they are more appropriately dealt with by global assessment of the applicant's injury under Item 8, which is facial fracture (severe). Accordingly, I make no award in relation to Items 2 and 4. During argument, Mr Olsen accepted this approach on behalf of the applicant.

Item 8 - Facial Fracture (Severe) - 20 per cent - 30 per cent

  1. [114]
    Mr Olsen submitted an aware of 24 per cent of the scheme maximum should be made under this item. As indicated, I consider a single award should be made in respect of this injury together with the facial bruising and swelling, and the fractured nose which required surgery. This approach was taken by Dearden DCJ in Franklin v. Timu at [11] and [12] where an award of 25 per cent was made under Item 8, in the circumstances of the case. In doing so, his Honour applied the statement of McMurdo P in Ridell v. Coffey at [18]:

"[The Act] intends to provide full compensation within the limits it imposes; it does not encourage or authorise duplication of compensation for what is effectively the same injury. The correct approach will always depend on what is fair and reasonable on the particular facts of each case, within the limits of [the Act]".

  1. [115]
    In this case, Dr Paul identified the applicant's injuries as including swelling over his cheekbone and a large bruise over his eyebrow. This is depicted in the photographs taken of the applicant's face immediately after the assault. These injuries are correctly described by the applicant's solicitor as being significant.
  1. [116]
    As I have said, the photographs graphically depict the swelling and his completely closed right eye. They clearly demonstrate the association between the bruising and the swelling to the left side of his face. The applicant said, in his victim impact statement it took about two months before this swelling started slowly subsiding, and he was able to begin to see through the left eye.
  1. [117]
    It is not disputed the applicant sustained a medically displaced fracture of his left nasal bone requiring surgical repair. The facial fracture was described by Dr Paul as a left inferior blow out fracture extending to the anterior wall of his maxilla. It required surgical exploration by Dr Sullivan who described it as a moderate sized left orbital floor fracture with prolapsed orbital tissue protruding into the left maxillary sinus.
  1. [118]
    The applicant's evidence is that this and the other injuries were accompanied by enormous pain for which he was medicated. Dr Paul opines the injuries would have caused moderate pain and discomfort at the time. Further, he was sent home with antibiotics.
  1. [119]
    There would also have been pain associated with the surgical procedures. In relation to the surgery for the facial fracture, a medpor sheet was implanted over the fracture. About 12 months later the applicant remained aware of this, and was unhappy it was there.
  1. [120]
    As indicated, he had a large area of numbness to the complete left side of his face, extending from his forehead to just under his mouth for almost ten months. However, over four and a half years later, he continues to suffer numbness under his left eye, and on the left hand side of his nose.
  1. [121]
    In these circumstances, I consider it is appropriate to make a global award of 25 per cent of the scheme maximum under Item 8 for these injuries. This is $18,750.

Item 29 - Loss of Vision (one eye) - 70 per cent

  1. [122]
    Mr Olsen submits that an award of 3 per cent of the scheme maximum should be made in relation to the applicant's loss of vision in his left eye. In his victim impact statement, the applicant says that after the swelling on his left eye started to subside, he experienced bad double vision in both eyes.
  1. [123]
    However, following the operation on 6 October, 2008, he started getting some vision back, and the double vision greatly improved. He concedes in his most recent affidavit that the double vision resolved after the assault. This is consistent with the basis on which I sentenced the respondent about 12 months later.
  1. [124]
    Mr Olsen properly concedes this is the position, but seeks to pursue the claim in relation to blurred vision, which the applicant asserts he received from the assault.
  1. [125]
    However, subject to the reference in Dr Sullivan's letter of 26 November, 2010, to Dr Pane, in which he advises the applicant had on-going visual disturbance, which he described as blurred vision in the left eye, as well as definite monocular diplopia in the eye, there had been no previous reference to the applicant suffering from blurred vision.
  1. [126]
    He was sentenced on the basis that the injury that he suffered to his eye had resolved.
  1. [127]
    The applicant does not mention blurred vision as opposed to double vision in his victim impact statement.
  1. [128]
    Further, Mr Olsen concedes the medical evidence of Dr Sullivan, Yuen, Pane and Stark, indicates no detectable injury to the left eye.
  1. [129]
    In these circumstances, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities, the respondent's assault on the applicant caused him to experience blurred vision. However, I consider it appropriate in the circumstances to compensate the applicant for the initial period of double vision, which had resolved by the date of sentence.
  1. [130]
    I am satisfied this was caused by the assault. I assess an award at 3 per cent of the scheme maximum. That is, $2250.

Item 31 - Mental or Nervous Shock (minor) - 2 per cent - 10 per cent

  1. [131]
    This aspect of the claim is based on the applicant's evidence he continues to suffer from aggravation of a pre-existing depression and anxiety condition. It is accepted on the applicant's behalf he is unable to provide any medical evidence in respect of this. However, it is submitted a nominal amount of 3 per cent of the scheme maximum should be awarded in the circumstances.
  1. [132]
    In JS v. Graveur [2012] QCA 196, the Court of Appeal approved the accuracy of the analysis of Byrne JA in RMC v. NAC [2010] 1QdR 395, and his conclusion that, "nervous shock" in the Act means a recognisable psychiatric illness or disorder.
  1. [133]
    Muir JA, with whom the other members of the Court agreed, also accepted that "mental shock" and "nervous shock" are interchangeable expressions.
  1. [134]
    In this case, even assuming the applicant suffered from a pre- existing depression and anxiety condition, which had been aggravated by the assault, there is no expert evidence that either the pre-existing condition or the aggravated condition is a recognised psychiatric illness or disorder. There is no evidence from Mr Casey or any other practitioner who purports to be his treating psychologist at relevant times, placed in evidence.
  1. [135]
    This is not a criticism. It is likely to reflect what appears to be Mr Casey's non responsiveness to requests made of him by the applicant's solicitors to provide them with the information.
  1. [136]
    The situation is different from Hong v. Gosbee, which is relied on by the applicant in support of the proposition that in the absence of the medical evidence commenting on injuries for which a claim is made, a nominal award may be made.
  1. [137]
    In that case, there was evidence before the Court, the applicant suffered double and blurred vision, although there was no report from an ophthalmologist before the Court.
  1. [138]
    In the present case, although the applicant has given evidence of symptoms consistent with anxiety and depression, and has stated that he has been told that he has developed possible post traumatic stress disorder and may have many elements of bi-polar disorder, without an expert opinion, this is insufficient to establish this constitutes a recognised psychiatric illness or disorder. It would be wrong for me to conclude such an illness exists based on a lay person's assessment of the symptoms or relying upon hearsay information about an alleged medical opinion.
  1. [139]
    In these circumstances, I am not satisfied the respondent's assault caused the applicant to suffer a recognised psychiatric illness or disorder constituting mental or nervous shock. Accordingly, I reject the claim for an award of compensation for this item.

Section 25(7) of the Act-Contribution:

  1. [140]
    Finally, I conclude that nothing in the applicant's actions on 27 June, 2008, contributed to his injuries for which I have assessed an award of compensation. Mr Goodwin conceded this to be the case, because the applicant was struck as he was moving away from the respondent. For this reason, there is no requirement for any further allowance to be made, or a lower percentage of compensation to be fixed, as a consequence of section 25(7) of the Act. The applicant did not in any way, either directly or indirectly, contribute to his injuries.

Conclusion and orders:

  1. [141]
    Accordingly, I assess the compensation in terms of the compensation table as follows:

Item 8 - facial fracture (severe) - 25 per cent - $18,750.

Item 29 - loss of vision (one eye) - 3 per cent - $2250.

Therefore, the total assessment is $21,000.

I order the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $21,000 by way of compensation pursuant to section 24 of the Act forinjuries sustained as a result of the offence of grievous bodily harm, which led to the conviction of the respondent in the District Court at Brisbane on 10 June, 2009.

...

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Parsons v Mitchell

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Parsons v Mitchell

  • MNC:

    [2013] QDC 57

  • Court:

    QDC

  • Judge(s):

    Irwin DCJ

  • Date:

    08 Mar 2013

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
AT v FG [2004] QCA 295
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2004] QCA 295
Boyd-Bush v Braden [2010] QDC 348
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QDC 348
Cite 2 - [2010] QDC 348
Citicorp Australia Ltd v Metropolitan Public Abattoir [1992] Qd R 592
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1992] Qd R 592
Cite 2 - [1992] Qd R 592
Concord Park Pty Ltd v Allied Organik Ltd [2003] QDC 420
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2003] QDC 420
Cite 2 - [2003] QDC 420
Darben v Appleton [2010] QDC 231
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QDC 231
Cite 2 - [2010] QDC 231
Dooley v Ward[2001] 2 Qd R 436; [2000] QCA 493
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2001] 2 Qd R 436
Cite 2 - [2001] 2 Qd R 436
Cite 3 - [2001] 2 Qd R 436
Franklin v Timu [2007] QDC 237
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2007] QDC 237
Cite 2 - [2007] QDC 237
Hannington v Chapman [2012] QSC 257
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QSC 257
Cite 2 - [2012] QSC 257
Hong v Gosbee [2011] QDC 231
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QDC 231
Cite 2 - [2011] QDC 231
JMR obo SRR v Hornsby [2009] QDC 147
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2009] QDC 147
Cite 2 - [2009] QDC 147
Cite 3 - [2009] QDC 147
JS v Graveur[2013] 1 Qd R 127; [2012] QCA 196
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCA 196
Cite 2 - [2012] QCA 196
Madden v Merlo [2009] QDC 118
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2009] QDC 118
Palmer v Hollows [2009] QDC 185
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2009] QDC 185
Cite 2 - [2009] QDC 185
Cite 3 - [2009] QDC 185
R v Mason [2000] QCA 179
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2000] QCA 179
Riddle v Coffey [2002] QCA 337
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2002] QCA 337
Cite 2 - [2002] QCA 337
Cite 3 - [2002] QCA 337
Riddle v Coffey (2002) 133 A Crim R 220
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2002) 133 A Crim R 220
Cite 2 - (2002) 133 A Crim R 220
Cite 3 - (2002) 133 A Crim R 220
Cite 4 - (2002) 133 A Crim R 220
RMC v NAC[2010] 1 Qd R 395; [2009] QSC 149
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2009] QSC 149
Cite 2 - [2010] 1 Qd R 395
Cite 3 - [2010] 1 Qd R 395
SAY v AZ [2007] 2 Qd R 295
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2007] 2 Qd R 295
SAY v AZ; ex parte Attorney-General[2007] 2 Qd R 363; [2006] QCA 462
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2006] QCA 462
Cite 2 - [2006] QCA 462
Cite 3 - [2006] QCA 462
Tyler v Custom Credit Corp Ltd [2000] QCA 178
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2000] QCA 178
Wren v Gaulai[2008] 2 Qd R 383; [2008] QCA 148
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2008] QCA 148
Cite 2 - [2008] QCA 148
Zaicov & McKenna v Jones[2002] 2 Qd R 303; [2001] QCA 442
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2001] QCA 442
Cite 2 - [2001] QCA 442

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.