Bould & Ors v Fooks & Ors [2012] QDC 233
1
[2012] QDC 233
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 1015 of 2011
SHARON MARGARET BOULD and Ors Plaintiffs
and
PEGGY ANNE FOOKS and Ors Defendants
BRISBANE
..DATE 14/08/2012
ORDER
CATCHWORDS
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 98
Sanction of dependency claim - court's duty to determine the
appropriateness of both the global amount to be paid and the
apportionment among the plaintiffs - plaintiff under a
disability had not been independently represented or advised.
-- 1 of 3 --
2 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
HIS HONOUR: The court makes an order in terms of the
initialled draft which sanctions, so far as the situation of
the third plaintiff makes it necessary, the compromise of a
dependency claim. The third plaintiff, although he's doing
well in life, has been assessed as suffering a disability that
makes it appropriate that his entitlement be managed by the
Public Trustee. The requirements of rule 98 appear to have
been satisfied.
The court is grateful to have the two advices of Mr Lynch of
counsel tendered as Exhibits 1 and 2 and now, for
confidentiality reasons, to be placed in a sealed envelope.
Those advices assist the court in its task which is one new to
me. The recent changes in the court's monetary jurisdiction
are likely to make dependency claims more common in this
court.
There are two issues for the court. The first is whether the
lump sum settlement figure is an appropriate one considering
the third plaintiff's best interests and the other is whether
the apportionment of the net sum produced is an appropriate
one so far as he is concerned.
The proceeding is not without its problems and complexities.
The material considered by the court persuades me that the
sanction is an appropriate one to give. The court's conscious
that there's a special responsibility to take account of the
third plaintiff's situation, given that he hasn't been
independently advised. That's hardly surprising in the
-- 2 of 3 --
3 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
context of what appears to be a close and cohesive family
which remains intact, notwithstanding that some of them are
now well past the age of majority. So, order as per
initialled draft.
-----
-- 3 of 3 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QDC/2012/233