Luck v Civil Mining and Construction Pty Ltd
[2009] QSC 413
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Luck v Civil Mining and Construction Pty Ltd[2009] QSC 413
- Add to List
Luck v Civil Mining and Construction Pty Ltd[2009] QSC 413
Luck v Civil Mining and Construction Pty Ltd[2009] QSC 413
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Trial Division | |
PROCEEDING: | Hearing |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | 16 December 2009 |
DELIVERED AT: | Rockhampton |
HEARING DATE: | 10 December 2009 |
JUDGE: | McMeekin J |
ORDER: | 1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $123,273.29. 2. Direct the Registrar to forward to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and to the Acting Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink copies of the transcript of the plaintiff’s evidence and of these reasons for judgement. |
CATCHWORDS: | DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – whether injury suffered significantly impacts upon the Plaintiff’s earning capacity given his pre-accident condition |
COUNSEL: | R C Morton for the plaintiff M Grant-Taylor SC for the defendant |
SOLICITORS: | Morton and Morton for the plaintiff McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the defendant |
[1] The plaintiff, Mr Alan Edward Luck, claims damages for personal injuries suffered in the course of his employment with the defendant, Civil Mining and Construction Pty Ltd on 28 November 2005. Liability is admitted. I am required to assess damages.
[2] Mr Luck was born on 1 October 1959. He was therefore 46 years of age when injured and is now 50 years.
[3] The significant issue is whether the injury suffered in the subject incident had a significant impact on the plaintiff’s earning capacity given his pre-accident condition. That in turn depends on the resolution of two related issues:
(a) Should the plaintiff be accepted when he claims that he had no significant back pain between returning to work with Sheppard Earthmoving in 2002 and the subject incident in November 2005?
(b) Did the plaintiff have a capacity for heavy labouring work pre-accident such that, had the subject incident not occurred, he could have maintained such employment?
The Injury and its Aftermath
[4] It is not in issue that on the 28 November 2005 Mr Luck lifted a 90 kilogram manhole cover and suffered pain in the mid to bottom section of his thoracic spine when he turned and twisted to place the manhole cover to one side. He had a short period off work, attempted to return to work, but was given heavy duties and decided to leave.[1] He was placed on the disability support pension on 9 February 2006.
[5] He has not sought medical treatment. There has been no improvement in his back pain. He occasionally experiences tingling of the fingers and legs. He has difficulties with walking and sitting for too long and with lifting and bending.
[6] In paragraph 4(e) of the statement of claim the plaintiff pleads that he suffered a traumatic exacerbation of lumbar spondylosis in the lifting of the manhole cover. The expert medical evidence however does not support any such injury. No point was taken on the discrepancy.
[7] The agreed medical evidence was that in the subject incident Mr Luck sustained an aggravation of a pre-existing underlying thoraco-lumbar anomaly.
The 1989 Incident
[8] The plaintiff suffered a severe injury to his thoracic spine and some injury to his cervical spine when a tree fell on him in April 1989.
[9] Two of the orthopaedic surgeons who assessed the plaintiff after that 1989 incident gave evidence. The plaintiff relied on the evidence of Dr Van Der Walt and the defendant on the evidence of Dr David Morgan. Both are experienced orthopaedic surgeons. Both assessed the plaintiff again after the subject incident.
[10] Dr Morgan expressed the view that in the earlier incident Mr Luck sustained an anterior compression fracture of the seventh thoracic vertebra, a fracture of the ninth thoracic vertebra and a cervical spinal injury. Radiographs showed that the plaintiff had suffered a loss of approximately 50% of the normal body height at the T7 level as well as some lesser loss of the body height at the T9 level. These opinions were not in contest.
[11] The surgeons agree that prior to the subject incident Mr Luck had a loss of 15% of the normal functional capacity of the whole person referrable to his thoraco-lumbar vertical column as a result of the 1989 incident. The doctors agreed that as a result of the subject incident Mr Luck had suffered an additional loss of 2% of the whole person function due to the impact on the thoraco-lumbar spine of the subject incident.[2]
[12] The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising out of the 1989 incident. It came on for hearing before his honour Judge Botting in July 1996. The plaintiff had had only one day’s employment between the 1989 incident and the hearing of that action.
[13] The effect of Mr Luck’s evidence is that following the 1989 incident he was in significant pain such that he was unable to work and that position continued until 3 or 4 years after the trial before Judge Botting. He said that over time his back and neck improved and eventually felt “great” and the pain had completely gone away. As a result he sought employment initially with John Sheppard Earthmoving and then with other employers performing heavy labouring work. That work included concreting, concrete pumping and pool construction. His evidence in chief was to the effect that during this time he had no long periods of unemployment and that his back was ‘going great’.
[14] The picture that emerged in cross examination was somewhat different to that painted in evidence in chief. If Mr Luck did maintain himself more or less in full employment from the time he commenced employment with Sheppard Earthmoving in 2002 until the time of the subject incident without “long periods of unemployment”, as he swore to, then he has seriously misled both the Australian Tax Office and Centrelink.
[15] The plaintiff’s income tax returns and the Centrelink records demonstrate that in July of 2003 the plaintiff was in receipt of a Newstart Allowance and received some $4,329 up to December of 2003 when he was placed on a Disability Support Pension. He remained on that pension until July 2005, a period of about 18 months. In July of 2005 he again recommenced on Newstart Allowance and received $1,214 up to 5 October 2005. In his evidence the plaintiff made reference to receiving cash in the hand from employment on a casual basis with a firm identified as Barra Concrete Pumping and from an individual identified only as Kieran. How much income was received from these entities or individuals was never clarified. One thing is clear and that is that there was no declaration of such income to either the tax office or to Centrelink.
[16] It might well be, as the plaintiff seemed to contend by the end of his cross examination, that the income earned from these employers that was not declared was at a relatively minimal level. If that is so then the true picture seems to be that the plaintiff obtained employment with Sheppard Earthmoving as a labourer sometime in 2002 and earned a little over $24,000 in the 2002-2003 year. In the 2003-2004 year he was in receipt of Centrelink benefits, Newstart Allowance for the first half of the year and Disability Support Pension for the second half of the year. He said that his entitlement to a Disability Support Pension came about by reason of his back problems. No significant income therefore was earned in the 2003-2004 year.
[17] In the 2004-2005 year he was in receipt of a Disability Support Pension. His income tax return shows that he earned $2,588 from Point Vernon Concrete Pumping working as a labourer constructing swimming pools.
[18] That seems to be the full extent of the plaintiff’s earnings history between the injury in 1989 and commencing with the defendant on 19 September 2005. He worked with the defendant for about 10 weeks before sustaining the further injury to his thoraco-lumbar spine.
[19] It is evident that the plaintiff contended before Judge Botting that he was in serious difficulties as a result of the injuries suffered in 1989. He spoke of occasional sharp pains in his neck and constant pain in his back which he rated at a level of 8 or 9 out of 10.[3] He had difficulties walking, standing, sitting for too long or with any quick movements that caused any jarring. He took no medication for the pain as he said it was not effective. The pain interfered significantly with his sleep, sports and hobbies, his personal relationship with his wife and his capacity to care for himself. His mother gave evidence at the District Court trial. She swore that she spent about an hour a day assisting him because of his back problems. She made his bed for him, performed his washing as he couldn’t bend over the washing machine, at times dressed him and completed tasks where there was any reaching up as he couldn’t do that. He was unable to do any gardening.[4]
[20] Dr Morgan expressed the view that the invariable history for someone with a thoracic lumbar vertebral crush fracture is that they suffer from pain which is ongoing. The pain may be episodic.
[21] Thus a claim that some ten or more years after the subject incident the pain from his condition eventually resolved and that thereafter the plaintiff was pain free would not be in accordance with Dr Morgan’s experience of this form of injury.
[22] Dr Van Der Walt too said that he was surprised that the plaintiff was able to rehabilitate himself to the extent of getting back to labouring work.
[23] In that regard Dr Morgan had expressed the opinion in February 1995 that as a result of the injury of the thoracic spine the plaintiff “should be excluded from heavy laborious forms of manual activity in the future”.[5] In December 1989 Dr Van Der Walt expressed the view that he considered the condition had stabilised and that Mr Luck “should try to find a lighter form of work than that of forestry worker”.[6] I feel confident that work as a concreting labourer would be at least as arduous, and I suspect considerably more arduous, than that of a forestry worker.
The Plaintiff’s Credit
[24] Mr Grant-Taylor SC who appeared for the defendant made a strong attack on the plaintiff’s credit. He submitted that in the absence of reliable corroboration for his testimony the plaintiff should not be accepted.
[25] Mr Grant-Taylor submitted that the plaintiff had been deliberately untrue in his completion of certain forms lodged with his employers, in his dealings with the Australian Tax Office and Centrelink and in the history that he provided to a Dr Williams, an orthopaedic surgeon. As well he had a significant criminal history.
[26] It is clear that the plaintiff failed to reveal to the Tax Office and to Centrelink cash payments received from at least two employers. As I have said the extent of the earnings obtained is not revealed by the evidence but may not have been significant.
[27] The complaints made about the documents signed by the plaintiff that related to his employment were as follows:
(a) In a document completed on 2 February 2002 the plaintiff failed to reveal the back injury suffered in 1989. He did reveal that he had suffered a neck injury and gave the date of injury as 21 April 1989 (the correct date being 10 April 1989). He revealed that he had claimed worker’s compensation in respect of that injury.
(b) On 5 April 2002 an employment application form with Sheppard Earth Moving was completed and signed. Mr Luck’s signature appeared beneath the words “I state that the details on this form are true and correct”. In that form he indicated that he had never been on worker’s compensation in Queensland and gave no details of the 1989 incident. Printed on the form were the words “from 1985 – 2001 I only worked as a live trout fisherman” which would be contrary to the evidence that he gave before me and before Judge Botting. In the health questionnaire section of the form the plaintiff has ticked “no” to the question as to whether he had ever suffered from back pain or neck injury.
(c) On 15 September 2005 in a further employment application form with Sheppard Contractors Mr Luck revealed that he had suffered an injury to his neck in 1989 and had made a claim for worker’s compensation but he did not reveal that he had suffered a back injury – by far the more significant injury. He indicated that he had lost no time during the last 12 months due to sickness and or due to any other reason. He did not reveal that he was on a disability support pension only two months prior to the completion of that form.
(d) On 19 September 2005 the plaintiff completed yet another employment application form with Sheppard Contractors where again he ticked “no” to a question of whether he had ever suffered from back pain or neck injury and again failed to reveal his worker’s compensation history.
[28] I am conscious that the plaintiff said that the writing on the various forms was not his but nonetheless he can read and write and he accepted that his signature appeared on the forms. He said that his wife completed at least some of the forms. In my view it is clear beyond argument that the plaintiff was attempting to conceal from his prospective employer the fact of the significant back injury.
[29] Mr Morton, counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that one possible explanation for the inaccuracies in the form is that the plaintiff was keen to gain employment and therefore conceal a condition which he considered to be no longer relevant. Whilst that is one possible explanation, and a probable one, the fact is that the plaintiff did not proffer it as the explanation. He claimed to have no memory of the forms. I find that claim very difficult to accept.
[30] The history that Dr Williams recorded from Mr Luck in February 2007 was that following the 1989 incident he was off work “for a few months” and that “after a few years the back pain improved”. If the evidence given to Judge Botting and to myself is accurate then the plaintiff was off work effectively from 1989 until 2002, a period of 13 years, and the back pain did not improve until some ten or more years had passed from the 1989 incident. Dr Williams was not available for cross examination and his report was tendered pursuant to section 92 of the Evidence Act 1977 and rule 394 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. Thus Mr Morton had no opportunity to cross examine Dr Williams as to the accuracy of his note. The plaintiff said that he was unable to recall the conversation. It is unlikely that in all the circumstances Dr Williams would have any recollection of the conversation either, it having occurred nearly 3 years ago. I doubt that cross examination would have achieved a great deal. The history recorded would be consistent with attempts to downplay the significance of the effects of the 1989 incident, an approach not out of keeping with other aspects of the evidence.
[31] Finally the plaintiff has a criminal history. On 3 occasions he has been convicted of producing and possessing dangerous drugs. Those convictions were recorded on 4 March 2004, the 2 September 2004 and 7 April 2008. On that last occasion he was sentenced to 4 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years.
[32] No evidence was proffered to explain his conduct. Mr Luck appears to have scant regard for the law and for his responsibilities.
[33] I am conscious that a readiness to conceal income from the Australian Tax Office and Centrelink, and perhaps not a great deal of income, and a willingness to produce cannabis in defiance of the law, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that an individual should not be believed on their oath. However, taking the picture as a whole there seems to me to be good grounds for accepting Mr Grant-Taylor’s submission that I should treat the plaintiff’s claims with some caution.
The First Issue – Was There Any Recurrence of Back Pain?
[34] It is not in contest that the plaintiff managed to get back to hard manual work. There is no attack on the plaintiff’s claim that he did in fact work as a labourer and indeed worked in a capacity acknowledged to involve heavy manual labour – that of concreting and concrete pumping. That is to his considerable credit. The issue is whether he did so without a recurrence of significant back pain. Plainly the specialists’ predictions were that he would have considerable difficulty performing the sort of work that he engaged in and a recurrence of back pain would be expected.
[35] To earn $24,000 the plaintiff obviously persisted with the work at Sheppard Earthmoving for some considerable time – probably for most of the 12 month period to July 2003. The fact that the plaintiff obviously persisted with the work for so significant period of time might be due to luck or to stoicism.
[36] Thereafter the plaintiff’s earnings were minimal before commencing with the defendant in September 2005. Because of my concerns about the plaintiff’s credit I cannot accept the plaintiffs claim that he had no difficulties with his back at all at face value.
[37] The crucial piece of evidence, overlooked by the plaintiff in his evidence in chief, is that he went onto a Disability Support Pension in December 2003 for about 18 months, and did so because of ongoing difficulties with his back.
[38] It would appear that the plaintiff paid the price that would seem to be inevitable given the state of his spine following on the 1989 incident. Dr Morgan’s expectations of the usual course of the injury sustained in 1989 were borne out.
[39] After the cessation of his employment with Sheppard Earth Moving the only significant employment revealed is that with Point Vernon Concrete Pumping in 2004-2005 year. However he earned only $2,588 from that employment which would suggest fairly limited work, perhaps in the order of about 5 weeks. His evidence in chief the plaintiff said that he was with Point Vernon for 5 to 6 months. If that is accurate then his employment was sporadic over that time. It does not demonstrate an ongoing capacity to maintain employment in a heavy manual labouring occupation. Again I am unable to make a finding that he had no back pain during that period. He claims that is so but without corroborative evidence I am not prepared to accept that it was so. The probabilities seem to me to be to the contrary.
[40] The plaintiff returned to labouring work with the defendant on 19 September 2005 and lasted about 10 weeks. It is clear that he was performing reasonably arduous labouring work in that time. There was no evidence from the defendant’s side that he had any apparent impairment or disability. That would justify a finding that if the plaintiff was suffering any discomfort then it was not manifested to his superiors and so perhaps not significant . The period of work of course was fairly limited.
The Second Issue – Has There Been an Impact on the Plaintiff’s Earning Capacity?
[41] Dr Van Der Walt expressed the view that it was quite impossible for medical science to predict an individual’s suitability for employment in the future based on clinical examination or radiological studies. Similarly he said one cannot predict the likely onset of disabling back pain in any individual. Hence Mr Morton submitted that whilst there should be some discounting to allow for the possibility of difficulties essentially the plaintiff should be assessed on the basis of an ongoing capacity for hard manual work.
[42] Dr Morgan had a different view. He accepted that whilst some radiological signs were not a good indicator of likely future symptoms, others were. He contended that there was a good correlation between the likelihood of symptoms and a crush fracture of the type that the plaintiff suffered in the 1989 incident. He could not say with precision when pain might come on but he considered it inevitable that there would be pain albeit possibly intermittent. Effectively, as a result, Dr Morgan expressed the view that the plaintiff’s future remunerative prospects have not been altered by the subject incident. Prior to it he was suited to sedentary work and that remains the situation.
[43] Dr Morgan pointed out that following the subject incident there was no change in the radiological pictures and there was no radicular symptomotology – that is nothing to indicate any significant reduction in function. Effectively all that is available is the plaintiff’s subjective reporting of symptoms.
[44] I accept Dr Morgan’s views. They seem to me to be more in accord with the demonstrated history that emerges from an examination of the plaintiff’s employment history and Centrelink record.
Summary
[45] I make the following findings:
(a) The plaintiff had a significant pre-existing condition of the thoracic spine which rendered him unsuitable for heavy manual labouring work;
(b) The end result of pursuing what appears to be reasonably heavy labouring work was that Mr Luck ended up back on the disability support pension for 18 months;
(c) About three months prior to the subject incident the plaintiff was on a disability support pension;
(d) That at all material times the plaintiff was not suited to heavy labouring work but rather suited to sedentary or semi sedentary work only, which incapacity arises out of the 1989 incident;
(e) The plaintiff was able to engage in reasonably heavy manual labouring work over a period of about 10 weeks from about 19 September 2005 to the subject incident on 28 November 2005;
(f) The subject incident has resulted in an onset of reasonably significant pain and discomfort. There has been a permanent increase in his level of impairment albeit of a modest level expressed by in terms of the AMA guides as a 2% impairment. That assessment takes no account of the subjective pain experienced;
(g) The presence of the Wadell signs commented on by the orthopaedic surgeons indicates that illness behaviour is present and hence there is probably some over emphasis on the pain experience;
(h) It is probable that had Mr Luck persisted with heavy labouring work, even within a safe manual handling environment, he would have suffered significant exacerbations of his spinal condition and suffered onsets of pain which would have limited his activities.
[46] With those findings in mind I turn to the assessment of damages.
Assessment of Damages
[47] The award for general damages should reflect the fact that had the subject incident not occurred the probability is that the plaintiff would have had episodes of reasonably significant pain as a result of the 1989 incident. It can be accepted that his condition is now worse but not significantly so. Whether he will heal with time and have a reduction in symptoms cannot be known. He did so after the far more significant incident of 1989. Mr Luck has a life expectancy of approximately 35 years. I assess general damages at $30, 000.
[48] I assess interest on general damages at 2% on $15, 000 of the general damages and award $1, 210.
[49] The economic loss assessments are governed by the principles discussed in cases such as Smith v Topp[7] and Hopkins v WorkCover Queensland.[8]
[50] For past economic loss counsel agreed that the plaintiff’s average earnings in the ten weeks leading up the subject incident were in the order of $649 per week net of tax. His loss depends on the extent to which the plaintiff was likely to be able to maintain employment in heavy labouring occupation assuming the subject incident had not occurred. The plaintiff had shown no inclination to pursue more sedate employment but his accident caused aggravation has probably restricted him further. On my assessment he was unsuited to heavier work and unlikely to last in his pre-accident position.
[51] Mr Grant-Taylor has submitted that a global component of $40, 000 is appropriate in the circumstances. Mr Morton submitted that one could take the average earnings immediately pre-accident, apply the average over the period since the accident, and discount by 50%, more or less, to arrive at a figure in the order of $66, 000.
[52] In my view the prospects of the plaintiff maintaining employment in heavy labouring over the last 4 years is significantly less than 50%.
[53] I accept Mr Grant-Taylor’s submission that an allowance of $40,000 is, in all the circumstances, generous. That is a little more than would be arrived at by the application over the period since the subject incident of the average weekly amount earned by Mr Luck between returning to work with Sheppard Earthmoving in 2002 and that incident.[9]
[54] I allow interest at 5% on $10,000 of the past economic loss assessment (bringing into account worker’s compensation payments and Centrelink benefits) and assess interest at $2, 017.
[55] The parties were furtherest apart in relation to their submissions on future economic loss. Mr Grant-Taylor SC contended for a global sum of $20,000. He submitted that the award for the future must be on a less generous basis than the past given that the plaintiff’s earning capacity had not been significantly altered by the subject incident and injury.
[56] Mr Morton contended for a figure of $255,000. He submitted that I should assess the loss at $325 per week to age 65 resulting, after application of the 5% discount tables, in an amount of $180,000 and add to that a global sum of $75, 000.
[57] In my view that submission considerably overstates the plaintiff’s pre-accident earning capacity and understates the impact of the pre-existing impairment would have on the plaintiff’s prospects of maintaining employment in heavy labouring work in the longer term.
[58] It can be accepted that Mr Luck might well have felt well enough to pursue labouring work from time to time and might well have managed to maintain employment for periods. He demonstrated a capacity to pursue labouring work for reasonably significant periods as in 2002-2003 and for 10 weeks in 2005. However he was ill advised to do so in a heavy labouring capacity. Both before and after the subject incident his true long term earning capacity was restricted to sedentary and semi sedentary work. He is presumably quite stoical. Nonetheless, acting sensibly, he should not have been pursuing such heavy labouring work and he was at risk, every day, in doing so. As he got older his prospects of being able to do so, assuming that the subject incident had not occurred, would have decreased.
[59] The assessment of damages is surrounded by more than the usual imponderables but doing the best I can I think it appropriate to award a global sum of $35,000. I assume a modest increase in the restrictions on him brought on by the 2% increase in his impairment. I essentially accept Mr Grant-Taylor’s submission.
[60] The plaintiff is entitled to an amount to compensate him for loss of employers’ contributions to superannuation which I will assess at 9% of the past and future economic loss components.
[61] A claim is made for future pharmaceutical and other expenses in the sum of approximately $10,000. The plaintiff gave evidence that he took medication to cope with his symptoms. He had not done so prior to the subject incident. Mr Morton has calculated that the average weekly expenditure is in the order of $5.75 to date. The plaintiff has not apparently consulted medical practitioners for a very long time now and no evidence was led to suggest that he was likely to have a need to do so in the future. I note that in the evidence that the plaintiff gave before Judge Botting he found that with time the medication did not assist and he ceased to take it. Here the plaintiff says that despite the passage of four years he has continued to take medication. There should be some moderation of his claim to allow for the possibility that there might be resolution in the future, as has happened in the past. I allow future pharmaceuticals at $4,000.
[62] Counsel did not agree on special damages. There was no cross examination of the plaintiff on the expenses claimed. I will assume that Mr Morton’s schedule is accurate.
[63] Counsel again did not agree on the expenses met by WorkCover. Mr Grant-Taylor contends for $1,658 which accords with the WorkCover Payment/Recovery History Report at 2.1 of Exhibit 1.
Summary
[64] In summary I assess the damages as follows:
Pain Suffering and loss of amenities of life | $30,000.00 |
Interest | $1,210.00 |
Past economic Loss | $40,000.00 |
Interest on past economic loss | $2,017.00 |
Past loss of Superannuation Benefits | $3,600.00 |
Future Loss of Earning Capacity | $35,000.00 |
Future Loss of Superannuation benefits | $3,150.00 |
Future Treatment Costs | $4,000.00 |
Special damages | $1,615.29 |
Interest on special damages[10] | $244.00 |
Expenses met by WorkCover | $1,658.00 |
Fox v Wood | $779.00 |
Total Damages | $123,273.29 |
Less WorkCover Refund | $4,413.95 |
Net Damages | $118,859.34 |
Orders
[65] There will be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $118,859.34.
[66] I will hear from counsel as to costs.
[67] Given the plaintiff’s admitted failure to disclose income to the taxation authorities and to Centrelink it is appropriate that copies of the relevant papers be forwarded to those authorities to determine what, if any, breach of the law has occurred, and what action should be taken. I direct the Registrar to forward to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and to Acting Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink copies of the transcript of the plaintiff’s evidence and of these reasons for judgement.
Footnotes
[1] $2,332 earned in an approximate six week period over December 2005 –January 2006
[2] The surgeons consulted with each other pursuant to directions that I gave pre-trial and as a result Dr Morgan produced a report of 20 July 2009 (Ex 14) which Dr Van Der Walt accepted accurately reflected their conversation (see document 1.3 of exhibit 1)
[3] See p 24 of exhibit 4.
[4] See pp 69-71 of exhibit 4.
[5] See p5 of exhibit 15.
[6] See exhibit 10.
[7] [2003] QCA 397 at [38]
[8] [2004] QCA 155
[9] Calculated by Mr Morton to be $36,656. Mr Grant-Taylor SC pointed out that taxation rates have been more generous in more recent times
[10] $1209.14 at 5% over 4.03 years