NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Ranieri v Nominal Defendant [2000] NSWSC 812 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20860 of 1995 HEARING DATE(S) : 14 July 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 17 August 2000
Jennifer Kathryn Ranieri (Plaintiff) PARTIES : v Nominal Defendant (First Defendant) & Ors JUDGMENT OF : Master Malpass
COUNSEL : Mr D Hooke/Ms C Ross (Plaintiff) Mr F McAlary QC/Mr D Ronzani (First Defendant) SOLICITORS : Robson & Oliver (Plaintiff) Abbott Tout (First Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Assessment of heads of damage LEGISLATION CITED : N/A CASES CITED : N/A DECISION : See Paragraphs 7, 15, & 19.
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION
MASTER MALPASS
THURSDAY 17 AUGUST 2000
20860 of 1995 JENNIFER KATHRYN RANIERI v NOMINAL DEFENDANT & ORS JUDGMENT 1 On 9 March 2000, a judgment which determined most of the numerous heads of damage was delivered. On 14 July 2000, a further judgment was delivered refusing an application made on behalf of the first defendant for leave to re-open. 2 Save for the head of damage relating to the operation of the goods and services tax (and any question of interest), the heads of damage which remain outstanding are as follows:- 1. Future Care; 2. Home Alterations; and 3. Physiotherapy Costs. 3 The parties have been given the opportunity to make further submissions. Certain further submissions have been made. 4 Once again I turn to the claim for home alterations. Associated with this claim is a claim for additional maintenance costs. In paragraph 113 of the earlier judgment, I informed the parties of the approach that I intended to take in relation to the claim. The parties were given the opportunity to both make further calculations and put further submissions as to the global sum to be allowed. The plaintiff has made an amendment to the calculations. Neither party has addressed the question of the global sum. The parties have remained entrenched in their extreme positions. 5 The plaintiff has repeated the claim for home alterations in the sum of $355,180. There has been adjustment to the claim for additional maintenance. This is now put in the sum of $146,480. 6 In its original submissions, the defendant responded with a figure of $67,263 for home alterations. This figure was discounted to $52,734 to make allowance for a deferral for five years. The original submissions responded also with a figure of $12,167 for additional maintenance costs. This figure was also intended to be the subject of a discount (which was not calculated) to take allowance for a deferral of five years. The supplementary submissions do not advert to the matter of additional maintenance costs. The responses have been regarded by the first defendant as involving admissions. 7 In the circumstances, the court is left with a task which is usually not easy and in this case has been made more difficult. The task is significantly an exercise of judgment and the result is necessarily one with arbitrary characteristics. Doing the best that can be done in the circumstances, the global sum of $250,000 is allowed for home alterations, and the global sum of $100,000 is allowed for additional maintenance. 8 This assessment takes into account allowance for a hydro-therapy pool. In the earlier judgment, there had been an inadvertent reference to a figure of $14,025 as the costs of the unit and hoist. I wish to make it clear that this assessment was not made having regard to that figure. 9 I now turn once again to the claim for future care. In paragraph 72 of the earlier judgment, I expressed a concern as to whether or not the Banana Coast costings represented the appropriate measure. In paragraph 73 thereof, I gave the parties the opportunity to make further calculations and/or submissions. As could be expected, my expressed hope for some consensus on this matter, did not materialise. 10 After the correction of errors, the plaintiff's further submissions identify the following costings:- "(a) Bananacoast $5,469.00 per week (b) Priority Care $5,277.00 per week (c) Dial an Angel $5,203.00 per week"
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate