Bryant v Tropical Reef Shipyards Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 183

o(-1§13~ State Reporting f(q75 Bureau t½r~( "Queensland Government ·· Department of Justice and Altomey•General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau. SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION DUTNEY J Application No 41 of 2000 JEFFREY WILLIAM BRYANT and TROPICAL REEF SHIPYARD PTY LTD CAIRNS .. DATE 19/02/2001 JUDGMENT Applicant/Plaintiff Respondent/Defendant 1 4Tl1 Floo1, Tl1e Laoo Ooa1ts Coi11plex, Oeo1ge Olieet, Dlisba11e Q. 4088. Telepl1011e. (B?) 8247 4080. Facsi111ile. (B7) 8247 5582 ::.·J -- 1 of 3 -- 09022001 T9/LET M/T CNS097/2001 (Dutney J) HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the defendant for a case appraisal in a personal injuries action arising out of a workplace related incident. Liability and quantum are both an issue. As far as quantum is concerned there are two doctors who have expressed an opinion as to the extent of residual disability the plaintiff suffers. Their assessments are, in the first 10 case five percent, and in the second case 30 per cent. It seems to me that it is unlikely that a case appraisal would result in any saving, or any signific~nt saving, of costs in a case like this. Where the disparity between the medical experts on quantum is so marked, it could only be resolved by cross-examination of the doctors, and it seems to me, unless there is some fundamental error made by one of the doctors to which my attention has not been directed, that it is not a matter that could be resolved on the papers. Liability is, of course, also an issue. The matter was placed on the call-over list before the call- over held last week for sittings commencing 12 March for a fortnight. At the call-over the matter was not set down because the defendant's specialist, Dr McFarlane, is in New Zealand until 27 March. I have been asked by the plaintiff to list the matter for the sittings commencing 12 March, notwithstanding, on the basis that Dr McFarlane can give evidence by telephone. While that is certainly the case, it 20 seems to me a little unfair to the doctor who would not, in 30 the ordinary course, be expected to have any records with him 2 JUDGMENT -- 2 of 3 -- 09022001 T9/LET M/T CNS097/2001 (Dutney J) to require him to give evidence while on vacation, and he may or may not, in fact, even be available during those times. Despite this, there is another civil sittings for three weeks commencing on 21 May. A case appraisal could not be held prior to 27 March in any event, and it is not certain, on the material, when such a case appraisal could be heard. In view of the fact that the trial is estimated to take something less than two days, and a case appraisal would take at least a day, it does not seem to me to be appropriate to have what must, in effect, be a first trial of the action for the purposes of the case appraisal with no assurance that there will be an end to the matter and that the parties would accept the outcome. Because a trial, in any event, can be held as soon as May this year, it seems more appropriate that the matter simply be resolved in the ordinary way, and I refuse the application for case appraisal. HIS HONOUR: I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application, to be assessed on the standard basis. 3 JUDGMENT 10 20 -- 3 of 3 --