LOLOMANAIA v. ROADS & TRAFFIC AUTHORITY [2000] NSWSC 523

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : LOLOMANAIA v. ROADS & TRAFFIC AUTHORITY [2000] NSWSC 523 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Civil FILE NUMBER(S) : SC No. 11135 of 1990 HEARING DATE(S) : 20.7.99 - 30.7.99; 8.10.99; 19.5.99; 7.6.00; 9.6.00 JUDGMENT DATE : 9 June 2000

PARTIES : KEPUELI TAUFUI LOLOMANAIA v. THE ROADS & TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES JUDGMENT OF : Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Plaintiff: J. Coombs, QC./W. Washington/P.J. Doherty Defendant: D. Nock, SC./S. Torrington SOLICITORS : Plaintiff: Bond & Bond Defendant: Hunt & Hunt CATCHWORDS : Addendum to judgment of 7 June 2000 DECISION : Verdict for the plaintiff

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 11135 of 1990

GREG JAMES, J.

FRIDAY 9 JUNE 2000

KEPUELI TAUFUI LOLOMANAIA v. THE ROADS & TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 7 June 2000, I delivered an addendum to the reserved judgment I had already published which was not, as was suggested in one counsel's submission, a provisional judgment. However, the figures contained in that judgment were figures that of necessity had to be reconsidered to update them, in regard to matters relevant to interest, to ensure mathematical correctness and that they corresponded accurately with the findings and submissions. 2 As I expressed in my judgment of 7 June 2000, the expectation was, so I was told at the time, that parties would be able to agree on relevant matters and short minutes would be provided to me. 3 However, two further questions have arisen the, first being which of two tables of life expectancy should be adopted for the purpose of the calculation of damages. I have ruled in favour of the plaintiff as to that. Secondly, as to whether a figure in respect of the plaintiff's past loss of income, expressing the years over which that income was lost was accurate. 4 It has been clarified that latter figure was selected so as to embody not only the loss of income from the time of employment, but the periodic losses of income that had occurred prior to that date. I have ruled in favour of the plaintiff in relation to that also. 5 I have now been provided with an addendum setting out the figures to be included in the judgment and that addendum, it is accepted by both parties, should be included with the judgment I have previously reserved and handed down and the judgment of 7 June 2000. It expresses itself in the language of the original judgment. 6 I have prior to completing the judgment dealt with the question of a stay as sought by the defendant and delivered a judgment in respect thereof. I had reached the point in my judgment where I was referring to the fact that I had published a judgment staying or indicating that I would upon entry stay the execution on the judgment, and at that point I was advised that a further application was to be made for indemnity costs. That application, if it were to proceed, plainly would require some argument and the present is not at all appropriate in the midst of this list, for such an application to be now made and I have directed that if it is to proceed it do so by substantive argument on a filed application. 7 Counsel for the defendant seizing the opportunity promptly sought that the judgment in that case not be entered. 8 I see no reason why it should not be entered for the judgment sum reserving the question of costs. The addendum to which I referred expresses the sums calculated and agreed upon by the parties in the light of my findings in the reserved judgment and in the light of the two rulings to which I have referred. I adopt it and incorporate it as part of my judgment for the judgment sum. I find a verdict for the plaintiff for damages in the sum of $944,357.50 in recognition of the calculations set out in the addendum at paragraphs 127, 128 and 129, and the documents. 9 I reserve the question of costs so what appears in paragraph 130 should be disregarded. 10 The exhibits are to be retained for a period of 28 days. 11 I should add that in accordance with my judgment on the stay I stay the judgment on the terms that I have formerly announced.