Assessment of quantum:
- · Especially past and future loss of income, in circumstances where the plaintiff had some pre-existing degeneration of his neck and back, a degree of emotional vulnerability, a congenital foot deformity and history of alcohol abuse (which had given rise to periods of domestic abuse and a custodial sentence);
- · The age of retirement 65 or 67;
- · Offsetting interest with the “surplus” WorkCover benefits; and
- · Contingency discount rate – 10/15/25/30/50%?
|Age||Injury and General Damages||CLA ISV||Uplift||Occupation||Past loss of income||Future loss of income|
(a) a crush fracture to his second lumbar vertebra;
(b) a crush fracture to his twelfth thoracic vertebra;
(c) a partial tear of his right rotator cuff;
(d) secondary psychiatric condition
Nil interest because of lump sum payment by WorkCover
|n/a||–||Labourer and machine operator||$139,230
$650 per week for the period of 252 weeks and discounted by 15%
No interest awarded following Mahoney v GEC Australia – “surplus” WorkCover benefits
$675 to age 65 on the five per cent discount tables (multiplier of 646), less discount of 30% because of congenital deformity, pre existing back and neck, emotional vulnerability and alcohol abuse
 At para 
 At para  referred to Waller v McGrath  QSC 158 at –  (in which Martin J used 10 per cent as the starting figure, which was increased to 12 per cent for the plaintiff, who was a 12-year old with learning difficulties and attention deficit disorder before the accident; upheld on appeal: Waller v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd  QCA 17 at ); Cameron v Foster  QSC 372 at  (also 10 per cent); cf Craddock v Anglo Coal (Moranbah North Management) Pty Ltd  QSC 133 at –  (in which McMeekin J described 15 per cent as “conventional” and stated that any change to that was a matter for the Court of Appeal).
 At para  explained the rationale for not accepting 25% (double 12%) or 50% the defendant was contending for.
 At para .
Brisbane Barrister – David Cormack