McCRACKEN v MELBOURNE STORM RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB AND 2 ORS [2006] NSWSC 1250

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : McCRACKEN v MELBOURNE STORM RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB AND 2 ORS [2006] NSWSC 1250

HEARING DATE(S) : 22-25 August 2005

JUDGMENT DATE : 23 November 2006

JUDGMENT OF : Hulme J at 1

DECISION : Orders deferred

Jarrod McCracken PARTIES : Melbourne Storm Rugby League Football Club Stephen Kearney Marcus Bai

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20071/03

Plaintiff: B Gross QC; T Boyd COUNSEL : Defendant: ML Williams SC Defendants: RS Sheldon

SOLICITORS : Plaintiff: Thurlow Fisher Defendants: Moray & Agnew

- 2 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

No: 20071/03

HULME J Thursday, 23 November 2006

Jarrod MCCRACKEN v MELBOURNE STORM RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED, Stephen KEARNEY AND Marcus BAI JUDGMENT 1 HULME J: On 22 February 2005 I directed judgment for the Plaintiff against each of the Defendants in this matter with damages to be assessed. I found that on 12 May 2000, the Plaintiff had been injured while playing rugby league football in consequence of a spear tackle effected on him by the Second and Third Defendants who, at the time, were employed by the First Defendant. I found that the actions of the Second and Third Defendants at the time of the tackle were intentional and intended to injure the Plaintiff, albeit not as seriously as in fact occurred. The injury that was effected included injury to the Plaintiff's neck and he has not played football since. These reasons are concerned with an assessment of the Plaintiff's damages. 2 At the time of his injury the Plaintiff was a successful professional footballer. He had also indulged successfully in a significant degree of land dealing and/or development and, directly or indirectly and with a deal of success, has continued activities in that area. This fact complicates the assessment of his damages but, at least so far as detail is concerned, the topic may be deferred for the moment. 3 The place where the injury to the Plaintiff occurred was Victoria. The Statement of Claim was filed on 7 May 2002, originally in the District Court. In written submissions, counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the relevant law was that of Victoria and because of the time of events and my finding that the Defendants' acts were intentional and with intent to cause injury, damages fell to be assessed in accordance with the general law and the applicable discount rate was 3%. Counsel for the Defendant accepted that this was the situation and I shall proceed accordingly.