Background
Leanne Griffiths died from cervical cancer in July 2022 at age 49. Her husband, Daryl Griffiths, brought proceedings alleging negligence by the defendant gynaecologist and seeking damages under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (NSW) for himself and the couple’s two daughters. The claim included more than $2.9 million for the commercial value of domestic, household and childcare services that the family alleged Leanne would have provided but for her death.
New South Wales Supreme Court decisions had taken differing approaches to whether ss 15 and 15B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) preclude or limit recovery for those lost services in a Compensation to Relatives Act claim. Griffiths sought separate determination of three questions concerning that statutory interaction and removal of those questions to the New South Wales Court of Appeal. Nesbitt opposed the application, arguing that separating the issues would fragment and potentially delay the proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
Lonergan J ordered under r 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) that three questions of law be decided separately before trial: whether s 15 or s 15B of the Civil Liability Act applies to claims under ss 3 and 4 of the Compensation to Relatives Act; if so, whether either provision precludes damages for lost domestic, household and childcare services; and, if not, whether and how either provision limits those damages.
The Court did not decide those substantive damages questions. It removed them to the New South Wales Court of Appeal for determination under r 1.21, finding that the conflicting first-instance approaches created uncertainty that another single-judge ruling would not usefully resolve. The questions required no evidence beyond the pleadings, and their resolution could substantially narrow the trial, reduce costs and stressful cross-examination, assist settlement, and provide guidance in other cases. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the motion.
Key Takeaways
- The judgment is procedural: it does not determine whether lost-services damages are recoverable or restricted.
- Conflicting Supreme Court approaches justified separating the statutory-construction questions and sending them directly to the Court of Appeal.
- The absence of evidentiary overlap and the potential to narrow a lengthy trial supported separate determination.
Why It Matters
The Court of Appeal’s eventual answers may clarify whether substantial claims for the lost domestic, household and childcare services of a deceased family member remain available under the Compensation to Relatives Act and whether the Civil Liability Act precludes or caps them.
That clarification is likely to affect the valuation, evidence, settlement strategy and trial length of wrongful-death proceedings throughout New South Wales. Until the referred questions are answered, this decision establishes the route to authoritative resolution rather than the governing measure of damages.