Deguara v Spartan Security (Qld) Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] QDC 87
[2010] QDC 87
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE SAMIOS
No 1080 of 2008
ANTHONY ERIC DEGUARA Plaintiff
and
SPARTAN SECURITY (QLD) PTY LTD
and
MAMA AFRICA (AIRLIE BEACH) PTY LTD
TRADING AS MAMA AFRICA NIGHTCLUB
and
SIMON PAUL GREENWOOD
Defendant
Defendant
Defendant
BRISBANE
DATE 16/03/2010
JUDGMENT
-- 1 of 9 --
Page 2
HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff was born on the 16th of May 1997.
On the 1st of May 2005, the third defendant in the proceedings
unlawfully assaulted the plaintiff. As best as I can
determine it was a single punch to the face which caused a
facial soft tissue bruising and contusions, a fractured left
orbito-zygomatico-maxillary complex and a temporo-mandibular
jaw joint disturbance.
The plaintiff was required to be seen at three hospitals.
Initially, he was taken to the Proserpine Hospital, then to
the Mackay Base Hospital and then finally to the Royal
Brisbane Hospital.
He has been examined by Professor Monsour an oral and
maxillofacial surgeon. Dr Monsour saw him on the 3rd of
November 2006 and provided a report. Dr Monsour confirms the
injuries received and says that in addition to the soft tissue
bruising and contusion there was, "associated neurological
changes due to the direct effects on extended substantial
peripheral sensory nerve elements in the infraorbital region."
At the time of his report he concluded that, "The resultant
situation has resolved comprehensively with no evidence of
residual aesthetic disability, while he retains a minor area
of residual neurological sensory change in the left upper lip
and anterior maxillary dentition."
He also states in his report, "The peripheral area of
innervation may relate to continuing recovery which apparently
-- 2 of 9 --
Page 3
is in evidence and potentially could resolve further to
possibly a completely normal situation in the following six to
12 months."
Also, "Direct palpitation over the left infraorbital nerve
region on emission through the facial bones onto the mid-face
presents triggered sensory response or tingling which tends to
suggest either residual neuroma or scarring as well as
possibly continued recovery which will lead to return to a
completely normal situation."
Professor Monsour states that when he was x-rayed by C T scan
at the Mackay Hospital, the plaintiff showed the classic
tripod type complex fracture of a left zygomatico maxillary
complex extending into the lateral wall of the left orbit and
orbital ring as well as a zygomatico frontal region
superiorally and extending inferiorally to involve the lateral
wall of the nose and medial antral wall.
At the Royal Brisbane Women's Hospital, the plaintiff
underwent an operation which was a complex open reduction and
direct fixation of the multiple fracture elements extending to
the tripod splinting with bone plating and screw fixation.
However, inter-operatively the reduced fractures complexes
were apparently identified to be stable on elevation through a
simple Gillies temporal approach through scalpel incision
while his nasal bones were apparently manipulated with a
closed reduction technique.
-- 3 of 9 --
Page 4
Dr Monsour concludes the current situation suggests excellent
aesthetic or anatomical reduction of the zygomatico maxillary
complex with good projection of the cheekbones while he
retains a degree of residual but apparently resolving
deficiency in the area of more peripheral distribution of the
left infra-orbital sensory nerve extending to the upper lip
and anterior maxillary regions.
Regarding the impact of the punch on the plaintiff, Dr Monsour
says the fractured elements involved were very significantly
the orbital ring and the left maxillary antral regions, as
well as the nasal airway. However, while he has returned a
normal projection in confirmation of the left orbital margins
and left zygomatico cheekbone complex, he retains a degree of
residual morbidity in the following areas. Minor residual
numbness or parathesiae, which is seemingly improving with
time, extending only into the left upper lip and interior
upper regions.
Professor Monsour would be confident that this would improve
either marginally or comprehensively over a further period of
12 months while the possibility exists of retaining some
degree of residual deformity. Awareness of continued
congestion in the left maxillary sinus presenting some degree
of pressure tension in diving under water suggestive of
continued blockage or irregularities on that side in
conjunction with restrictive nasal airway breathing.
Professor Monsour says the nasal airway restriction is to a
-- 4 of 9 --
Page 5
significant extent obstructed bilaterally on clinical
assessment and while this may have been to a significant
extent pre-existing, his partner admits to his suffering
significant snoring disability only since this incident of
trauma, which is probably more attributable to nasal airway
restrictions during sleep.
The plaintiff has given evidence before me today and has said
he has continued to suffer from sleep apnoea. He has been
tired. He snores much more than he used to and he has to
sleep in another room away from his partner and he does not
sleep well. He also gets tired driving machinery and finds he
cannot drive machinery because of the continuing effects of
the restrictions on his nasal passage. This also has an
impact on his earning capacity which I'll return to soon.
Dr Monsour also confirms there was the clicking of the jaw
joint and although there was minimal evidence of crepitus or
clicking, there was a probability of a very minor
discarrangement without any discomfort or pain possibly felt
more attributable persistent irregularities in independent jaw
functions.
Professor Monsour thought this could be correction by
discipline on the balance of the jaw functions and the
situation should resolve comprehensively. Overall, Dr Monsour
confirmed in his report, and also when giving evidence before
me, that there is a permanent disability as a result of the
injury suffered by the plaintiff and he would, in using the
-- 5 of 9 --
Page 6
AMA 5 schedule, utilised table 11-5, Criteria for rating
impairment due to facial disorders and/or disfigurement and
suggest a classification 1 level of impairment in the order of
3 per cent of the whole person on the basis of current
findings accepting that his antral an nasal mucosal and airway
condition become significantly enhanced with treatment.
It is also acknowledged that he suffered an interim period of
significant swelling and associated discomfort and anxiety
apparently attributable to particularly the neurosensory and
aesthetic changes in the overall region.
Dealing with general damages, there is no doubt in my mind
that the plaintiff comes to the top of the ISV assessment in
item 16, schedule 4 of the Civil Liability Regulation 2003. I
also consider that in the circumstances there should be a
higher than the maximum in this case because of the
constellation of injuries suffered by the plaintiff and that
he has been left with permanent disability which is now also
being investigated at the hospital due in the future to
determine the impact of his sleep apnoea and what may cause it
and what may lead to its resolution if any.
I accept his evidence that he's continued to suffer from this
condition. I consider he has taken the view that it might
have recovered itself but it has not and it's reasonable that
the course has been taken by him to wait this time and to
finally book in to have something done about it. I accept
he's been reasonable in all respects but there should be a 25
-- 6 of 9 --
Page 7
per cent uplift in accordance with sections 3 and 4 in this
case and I would, therefore, lift the maximum ISV to 16 and
applying the schedule that I've been given, the injury scale
value of 16 produces a general damages award of $19,600 in
this case.
The plaintiff has also sworn to the accuracy of his statement
of loss and damage and in it he claims paste economic loss of
$14,379 and he should be allowed that item. There should be
interest also on past economic loss of 3 per cent for 4.89
years, which is the period since the date of the incident to
the present time, which is the sum of $2,109. He should also
be allowed past superannuation loss, which is 9 per cent of
$14,379, which is a figure of $1,294 and there should also be
interest on past superannuation loss at 3 per cent for 4.89
years, which is a figure of $190. Regarding future economic
loss, the plaintiff has given evidence that the impact of his
injuries has been to lead to a, in the hand, loss of $800 per
week.
I accept his evidence that he says he could work in the mines
at a much more substantial earning amount than he could
presently earn in the mines.
He at present is working on a cane farm in a labouring
capacity although he's also got a managerial position and,
while he has some responsibilities there, he could also work
on the mines if it had not been for his injuries in this
incident.
-- 7 of 9 --
Page 8
I've come to the view that, doing the best I can for a man
who's 33 years of age and bearing in mind that his future may
lead to recovery of his capacity to earn income if further
investigations prove in his favour, to allow him a global sum
of $30,000 for future economic loss.
He should also be awarded his special damages. There was
substantial travelling involved of 5,280 kilometres being two
trips from Mackay to Brisbane. He was not allowed to fly for
these trips. Accepting the Taxation Office allowance of 70
cents per kilometre, that is a sum of $3,696. He also
verified pharmaceutical expenses in round terms of $500,
medical expenses again in round terms of $500, and finally
doctors' expenses in round terms of $500. Those special
damages, therefore, total $5,196.
He should be allowed interest on the special damages at three
per cent per annum for 4.89 years, which is the sum of $762.
He also should be allowed his special damages for the hospital
expenses: the Proserpine Hospital of $784, the Mackay Base
Hospital was $928, and the Royal Brisbane Hospital was $1,755.
All these expenses have been verified on an affidavit of Mr
Mould. That makes those special damages a total of $3,611.
Now, as far as future specialists are concerned I accept that
he has had the sleep problems associated with his nasal
passage since the incident. He may have been a snorer,
-- 8 of 9 --
Page 9
perhaps, to some extent before this incident but I accept that
he has had much more difficulty sleeping and it has interfered
with his relationships with his partner and it has led now to
further hospitalisation being booked for the future to try and
determine the prospects of rectifying the problem. I accept
the problem has been caused by the incident. For the sleep
apnoea course and the sinus operation I allow $6,500.
That therefore makes a total of $83,641 and I give judgment
for the plaintiff against the first defendant for damages
assessed of $83,641 and I'll hear Mr Gunn on the question of
costs.
...
HIS HONOUR: I order the first defendant to pay the
plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the indemnity basis.
-----
-- 9 of 9 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QDC/2010/087