New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : BORG v. GIO [1999] NSWSC 46 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : 12793/87; 12794/87 HEARING DATE(S) : 8.2.99; 9.2.99; 10.2.99 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 February 1999 PARTIES : Pauline Josephine BORG, by her tutor, Victoria Pauline Borg v. Government Insurance Office of New South Wales & Anor; Victoria Pauline BORG v. Government Insurance Office of New South Wales & Anor JUDGMENT OF : Greg James J at 1 Plaintiff: P. Neil, QC/J.C.Carr COUNSEL : First Defendant: J.D. Hislop, QC/L.I. McGillicuddy Second Defendant: G. Inatey, SC/A.M. Colefax Plaintiff: Bateman Battersby SOLICITORS : First Defendant: J.M. Crestani Second Defendant: Colin Biggers & Paisley CATCHWORDS : Motor vehicle accident; deceased parents; personal injuries; approval of compromise; no question of principle Compensation to Relatives Act ACTS CITED : Damages (Infants & Persons of Unsound Mind) Act 1929 Protected Estates Act DECISION : Settlements sanctioned BORG -4- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION No. 12793 of 1987 No. 12794 of 1987 GREG JAMES, J. WEDNESDAY 10 FEBRUARY 1999 PAULINE JOSEPHINE BORG, by her tutor, VICTORIA PAULINE BORG v. GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & ANOR VICTORIA PAULINE BORG v. GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES & ANOR JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR: 1 In actions in this court, the first commenced on behalf of the children of two deceased parents under the Compensation to Relatives Act, the second commenced by a plaintiff, one of those children who sustained severe personal injuries in the motor vehicle collision in which her parents were killed, the parties have been able to come to agreement. 2 In each case my sanction has been sought for that agreement as it is by way of compromise under the Damages (Infants and Persons of Unsound Mind) Act 1929. On the applications for approval, there has been tendered to me as evidence a summary of the plaintiff's case dealing with the probabilities of success in the action and the quantum of damage, summarising, so I am told, the relevant medical reports. 3 It is a summary to which the defendants have also assented. I am assured by senior counsel appearing for all parties that in their view the settlement of both actions is an appropriate one and that examination has been made of the medical reports and a commonalty of views amongst those experts providing reports has been noted. 4 The substance of those views is noted at the conclusion of the summary. The injuries were appalling. Provision for the future is understandably very large. There is little discount involved in the settlement for the possibility of loss of the action although there was raised by the pleadings, and no doubt to be raised in the evidence, a prospect that the plaintiff might fail against the first defendant on a defence of inevitable accident, and could also fail against the second defendant, a local council on the basis that it could not be shown that council had responsibility for the slipperiness of the road which would have been the basis for that defence of inevitable accident. Nonetheless, on the calculations, that prospect seems little, if at all, to have been taken into account. 5 The sums providing for each head of damages in the personal injuries action referred to in that summary seem proper. In those circumstances, I am of the view that I can approve the settlement of that action and since I am assured that the sum in respect of the Compensation to Relatives action accords with the general table in relation to damages appearing in the standard text, and with the assessment by all counsel of the means of the deceased, affords appropriate provision for the children, and I am further informed that provision is to be divided equally amongst the children, I am, in the context of the provision, made for the plaintiff in the other action, of the view that settlement might also be properly approved in those proceedings. 6 In each matter I sanction the settlement in respect of Pauline Josephine Borg who is the plaintiff by her tutor Victoria Pauline Borg in the first action and one of the children on behalf of whom the action was brought in the other action which itself is brought by Victoria Pauline Borg. 7 I enter judgment and order costs in accordance with the terms of settlement in action 12794/87, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8. I note paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10; in accordance with the terms of settlement in action 12793/87, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10. I note paragraphs 6, 7, 11 and 12. 8 I note that I am informed by counsel for the plaintiff that an application will be brought immediately to enable the appointment of the Protective Commissioner, an officer of the court, under the Protected Estates Act in respect of the estate of the plaintiff Pauline Josephine Borg. 9 The monies payable pursuant to the judgment shall be paid to the Protective Commissioner in his capacity as an officer of the court to be held for and on behalf of that plaintiff pursuant to the Damages (Infants and Persons of Unsound Mind) Act 1929 and in accordance with such order as is made under the Protected Estates Act. 10 I note further that in respect of those monies payable under the judgment, the monies to be paid to the Commissioner shall be paid subject to any deduction under the Social Security Legislation or that the Health Insurance Corporation is legally entitled to make. 11 In respect of one-third of the sum provided for by the judgment in the action under the Compensation to Relatives Act, I make the like orders as I have made in respect of the action for personal injuries. 12 I direct by consent that the payment of the amounts to be paid to the Protective Commissioner on behalf of the plaintiff Pauline Josephine Borg be consolidated to the intent that one fund shall be established by the Commissioner on receipt. 13 Further I grant liberty to the parties to apply on seven days notice in the event of there being any difficulty in the implementation of the appointment of the Protective Commissioner. Last Modified: DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.