Dickson v Chaffey & Anor (No 4) [2012] NSWSC 1277

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dickson v Chaffey & Anor (No 4) [2012] NSWSC 1277 Hearing dates: 23 October 2012 Decision date: 23 October 2012 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Beech-Jones J Decision: Verdict for Plaintiff against First Defendant in the amount of $1,830,701.70. Catchwords: Ex parte hearing - quantum - no question of principle. Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 - s 3B(1), s 15B, s 16, s 18(1), s 52 Cases Cited: - Dickson v Chaffey & Anor (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 1135 - Todorovic v Waller [1981] HCA 72; 150 CLR 402 Category: Consequential orders Parties: Steven George Dickson (Plaintiff) Russell Peter Chaffey (First Defendant) Event Safety & Security Solutions Pty Ltd t/as Reddawn (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: I.D. Roberts SC, Ms K. Oldfield (Plaintiff) Solicitors: Stacks Goudkamp (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2010/401443

EX TEMPORE Judgment 1On 18 September 2012, I entered judgment for the plaintiff, Mr Steven George Dickson, against the first defendant, Russell Peter Chaffey, for an amount to be assessed (Dickson v Chaffey & Anor (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 1135 (Dickson No 3). This followed a hearing at which Mr Chaffey had chosen not to appear. 2After giving judgment, I made directions for the service of material concerning quantum upon Mr Chaffey, for the notification to him that the matter would be re-listed today and for him to have the opportunity to make submissions. Mr Chaffey was duly served, but has again chosen not to appear. Accordingly, I proceeded to determine quantum in his absence. 3In Dickson No 3 at [18] I found that Mr Chaffey had unlawfully assaulted Mr Dickson on 2 December 2007. At [19], I rejected the existence of any defence under s 52 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (the "CLA"). 4As a proper characterisation of Mr Chaffey's conduct involved him engaging in an intentional act with the intention to cause injury to Mr Dickson, it follows from s 3B(1)(a) of the CLA that, with the exception of s 15B and ss 18(1)(c), the restrictions on damages found within that legislation have no application to any assessment of Mr Dickson's loss. Sections 15B and ss 18(1)(c) have no relevance to Mr Dickson's case.