Meechan v Savco Earth Moving Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 14

Material Facts

The Plaintiff, Mr Meechan, was employed by a subcontractor of the Defendant, Savco, as a labourer assisting in the kerbing and channelling of a site in Crestmead.  Mr Meechan claimed he was injured when he was standing on the back of a truck in the course of his employment and was struck by the boom of a hydraulic excavator.  The court considered that Savco was not responsible for Mr Meehan’s injuries and, in fact, considered that even if Savco had caused Mr Meehan’s injuries, Mr Meehan would have been 80% contributory negligent.  However, the court considered of the quantum of the claim, nonetheless.

Quantum Findings

Special damages, ‘out of pocket’ expenses and Fox v Wood damages were agreed between the parties, so this left only General Damages and Past Economic Loss (and the resultant Loss of Superannuation) to be calculated.

General Damages

In assessing General Damages, the court considered the medical evidence and in particular, the discrepancy between the independent medical reports.  The reports featured the inconsistency in the reported behaviour of the plaintiff during the examinations.  In relation to this, the court considered its assessment of Mr Meehan’s credibility as a witness for liability matters and extended this to his creditability during examination.  The court considered the reports noting markedly more restriction in range of motion to be infected with Mr Meehan’s desire for a result to his advantage.

As such, the general damages assessment was based on Mr Meehan suffering fractures and only a slight loss of rotation.  The court did not accept Mr Meehan’s evidence as to continuing pain and assessed the General Damages to be $10,000.00.

Past Economic Loss

The assessment for past economic loss was difficult given the lack of records kept by the Plaintiff and lack of contemporaneous evidence such as tax returns available for use.  A schedule was created which contained the earnings which could be found and Centrelink payments that were made to Mr Meehan.  However, Mr Meehan himself admitted that the schedule did not accurate show the full extent of his past earnings.

Salvo claimed that an inference should be drawn from that admission that Mr Meehan was likely to have understated his earnings to Centrelink as well.  The court did not specifically address this point nor consider it necessary to do so to reach a determine the full extent of Mr Meehan’s past earnings.

Nonetheless, the schedule showed an ‘on and off’ working history and so the court found that Mr Meehan was only incapacitated from work for the period that WorkCover considered him to be incapacitated from work, being 23 weeks.  The court accepted Mr Meehan’s assertion that he would have been earning in the order of $750 per week were it not for the injuries.  Therefore, past economic loss was quantified at $17,250 being $750 for the 23 weeks that he was incapacitated from work.

Past loss of superannuation was awarded at 9.5% of the past economic loss figure, being $17,250.00.