Blaxter v The Commonwealth [2005] NSWSC 941

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Blaxter v The Commonwealth [2005] NSWSC 941

HEARING DATE(S) : 31/05/2004; 01/06/2004 to 04/06/2004; 07/06/2004; 08/06/2004; 10/06/2004

JUDGMENT DATE : 20 September 2005

JURISDICTION : Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF : Hidden J at 1

DECISION : Damages awarded for non economic loss - further submissions on economic loss invited.

CATCHWORDS : ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY - Voyager/Melbourne collision - claim for psychological injury and consequent economic loss

Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Limited (2004) 217 CLR 469 Commonwealth of Australia v Ryan [2002] NSWCA 372 CASES CITED : Hill v The Commonwealth [2003] NSWSC 1025 March v Stramare (1990-91) 171CLR 506

Lawerence Gary Blaxter (plaintiff) PARTIES : The Commonwealth of Australia (defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20777 of 1997

A G Melick SC with Ms K Sant (plaintiff) COUNSEL : R E Williams QC with I M Lachlan (defendant)

James Taylor & Co (plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Australian Government Solicitor (defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HIDDEN J

20 September 2005

20777/1997 Lawerence Gary Blaxter v The Commonwealth of Australia

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Lawerence Gary Blaxter, was a seaman aboard the HMAS Melbourne at the time of its tragic collision with HMAS Voyager in the evening of 10 February 1964. It is unnecessary to examine the detail of that notorious incident. It was the subject of a Royal Commission, leading to a report which is in evidence before me. Nor is it necessary to examine at any length the plaintiff's evidence of his experience of the incident. It is sufficient to say that he was the coxswain of a cutter involved in rescue operations after the collision, that he saw the devastation which it caused, that he feared for his own life, and that among the dead were two good friends of his. It is not in dispute that the experience was terrifying and distressing. 2 He brings these proceedings against the Commonwealth of Australia for damages for negligence, alleging psychological injury as a result of the incident, together with consequent economic loss. Duty and breach are admitted. The only issue is damage. Broadly speaking, it is the plaintiff's case that the incident led to post traumatic stress disorder, generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence. The Commonwealth takes issue with the credibility of these claims, and questions whether any psychological symptoms which might be established by the evidence are attributable to the incident.