Armstrong, Paul Edward (an infant by his next friend and father Armstrong, Darcy Allan) v Rudd, Andrew William

No judgment structure available for this case.

CATCHWORDS

D a i n a g e s - Loss of earning capaciry - Errors of

fact

affecting award - Inf la t ion - Effect of t a x on income

from award.

ON APPEAL from the Supreme C o u r t of	the A u s t r a l i a n
C a p i t a l Territory

BETFlEEN

:

PAUL EDWARLI ARMSTRONG an i n f a n t by h i s

p

r

DARCY ALLZIN ARMSTRONG

P l a i n t i f f

( R e s p o n d e n t )

AND

:

ANDREW WILLIAM RUDD

-

D e f e n d a n t

( A p p e l l a n t )

N o .

F . C . 1 7

of

1977.

I

C o r a m	:	B r e n n a n ,	D e a n e	.S	N c G r e g o r JJ.
S y c l n e y

i

8 September 1978 .	' ,
!
I
I
I

L

I I	IN THE FEDERAL COURT	OF AUSTRALIA )
!

1

AUSTRALIAN

CAPITAL

TERRITORY

1

No. F.C.17 of 1977

DISTRICT REGISTRY	1
1

DIVISION

GENERAL

1

ON APPEAL from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

BETWEEN : PAUL EDWARD ARMSTRONG an

infant bv

h i s next friend

and fathzr DARCY	ALLAN
ARMSTRONG

Plaintiff(Resp0ndent)

-

AND

: ANDREW WILLIAM RUDD

Defendant(Appel1ant)

ORDER

JUDGES MAICING ORDER : Brennan, Deane

& McGregor JJ.

DATE

OF

ORDER

: 8 September

1978.

WHERE MADE

: Sydney.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Appeal allowed.

2. The defendant respondenr pay the plaintiff

appellant's costs

of the appeal.

3.

Order of the Supreme Court

of the Australian

Capital Territory be varied by the substitution

of the

sum of $144,364.50 for the

sum of

$158,364.50.

I --

-

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF	AUSTRALIA	)
I

AUSTRALIAN

CAPITAL

TERRITORY

1 No. F.C.17 of 1977

DISTRICT

REGISTRY

GENERAL

D I V I S I O N

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREW3 COURT OF

THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL

TERRITORY

BETWEEN : PAUL EDWARD ARMSTRONG

an i n f a n t by

h i s next

f r i e n d a n d f a t h e r

DARCY ALLAN ARMSTRONG

P la in t i f f (Resp0nden t )

AND	: ANDREW WILLIAM RUDD
_.

Defendant

(Appellant)

CORAM : Brennan, Deane and	McGregor	JJ.
8 September 1978.

REASONS

FOR

JUDGMENT

BRENNAN J. :

The

r e s p o n d e n t p l a i n r i f f

was

i n j u r e d

i n a

d i s t r e s s i n g a c c i d e n t .

H e was

s i t t i n g

i n t h e

l e f t passenger

seat

o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s v e h i c l e

when

it

lef t

t h e b r i d g e

ove r B e l l ' s Creek

on

t h e Araluen Road,

c rashed through the

wooden

r a i l l n g s a n d

f e l l i n t o t h e

creek

bed.

H e l o s t

consciousness f o r a t i m e .

When he

rega ined

consc iousness ,

he d i scove red h i s awfu l

In ju ry .

H e

descr lbed what he

saw:

"I could

j u s t see

t h e wood

coming

o u t o f t h e c a r

from where I was.

From m e it went down t o t h e

l

f l o o r , o r t h e

firewall i n the motor , and

it j u s t

went

s t r a i g h t t h r o u g h , a n d t h a t

i s

a l l

I

could

.

./2

2.

see of

it...I t r i e d t o push my

back on the back

s e a t a n d

move,

and when

I

found I c o u l d n ' t

I

p u t my hand behind

my back and

I could feel t h e

end

of

t h e p o s t a n d

I

r e a l i s e d it had gone

s t r a i g h t

h r o u g h

me.

"

H e w a s

i n s e v e r e p a i n .

The

p o s t ,

6

inches

by

4

inches ,

had en te red h i s

body

j u s t b e l o w t h e r i g h t

I l i ac

fossa

and

emerged

from

h i s r i g h t b u t t o c k . T h e r e

was

a

g ross

comminution of

t h e r i g h t

ilium,

the symphysis pubis

was

sepa ra t ed ,

t he f emora l ne rve

w a s

d iv lded , and gross

damage

was

done

t o t h e r l g h t p e l v l c

bone and

t o t h e g l u t e a l

muscles.

The

r i g h t s a c r o i l i a c

j o i n t

was

completely

d i s r u p t e d . F o r t u n a t e l y ,

t h e p e r i t o n e a l

c a v i t y

was

n o t

penetrated.

Four

and half

hours

later, t h e wood was sav7n

o f f ,

and he

was

t a k e n t o h o s p i t a l

by

ambulance.

The

p o s t

was removed,

and

he v7as

p laced unde r in t ens ive

care.

This

happened

on

2 1 J u l y

1 9 7 4 .

H e was

17.

H e

sued

i n t h e

Supreme

Court

of

t h e A u s t r a l i a n

Capital

T e r r i t o r y t o r e c o v e r

damages

fo r neg l igence , and

h l s c l a i m

was

con te s t ed on ly

as

t o amount.

The

l ea rned

trial judge

awarded

him

$158,364.50

(including

$8,364.50

for

agreed

pre- t r ia l

economic

loss) and COSLS.

Tie

a p p e l l a n t d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s a g a l n s t t h a t

award and submits

t h a t t h e

award was

man i fe s t ly excess ive , and

was

a f f e c t e d

by

e r r o r s o f f a c t w h i c h

led

h i s Honour

t o assess

t h e

damages

awarded

a t t o o h i g h

a

f i g u r e .

. .

. /3

!

3.

B e f o r e h i s a c c i d e n t ,

the

respondent

was

an unsk i l l ed

l aboure r .

H e l e f t s c h o o l

as

soon

as he

tu rned 15 ,

when

he

was

i n t h e T h i r d

Form.

H e

d l d n o t

l i k e s c h o o l , a n d h i s a c a d e m i c

s t a n d a r d w a s poor.

H e

g o t

a

j o b a s

a

t r a inee g reenkeepe r

a t

the Canberra

Grammar

School ,

a

job which involved heavy

gardening work.

But

he

l

iked sport

,

and he

became

t h e c a p t a i n

of

an under- l8 rugby league

t e a m

p l a y i n g c o m p e t i t i o n f o o t b a l l .

H e hoped

t o become

a

top p l aye r and ,

i f

he

was good enough,

a

p r o f e s s i o n a l .

The accident

changed

a l l t h a t .

H e s p e n t five o r s i x

months

i n hosp i t a l and

was

a mere

7-1/2

s tone on d i scha rge ,

compared with his

usual

13-1/2

s tone.

H e had

a permanent

paresis

o f t he r igh t f emora l ne rve , and pa l sy

of

t h e r i g h t

lateral

p o p l i t e a l

n e r v e .

H e was

f i t t e d

w i t h

a

c a l i p e r

t o

I.

a l low him t o walk, and

a t f i r s t he had

t o use

it cons tan t ly .

Because

t h e c a l i p e r r e q u i r e d

him

t o walk s t i f f - legged , he

s t a x t e d

t o t a k e

it

o f f f o r p e r i o d s .

On

a

few

occasions, he

even played

9

ho le s o f go l f .

H e

l o o k e d

f o r

work.

A f t e r

13 months ,

h i s

bro ther - in-

law,

who

has a

small plumbing business , gave

him

a

l i g h t

l abour ing job .

H e

s t a y e d t h e r e f o r

a

yea r , bu t he had

many

a

d a y o f f b e c a u s e o f t h e p a m i n h i s

leg,

and he could not

cont inue. There

was

a

de lay

a f te r

q u i t t i n g t h i s b e f o r e h e

g o t a

job on

a b u i l d i n g s i te .

A f t e r a

few weeks he 17as l a i d

o f f because he

112s

unsa t i s f ac to ry . A l though

the

r e sponden t ' s

e f f o r t s d e m o n s t r a t e d , a s t h e l e a r n e d

t r ia l

judge sa id ,

.

./4

4 .

" c o u r a g e , s t o i c i s m a n d t e n a c i t y " , h i s i n j u r i e s p r e c l u d e d

h i s

r e t a i n i n g

employment.

F i n a l l y ,

o n e

o f

h i s

f r i e n d s ,

who was t h e manager of

a w1ne bar, gave him

a job as a

barman

f o r t h r e e n i g h t s

a

week

f o r f o u r o r f i v e

weeks.

But

t hen he

was

a d v i s e d t o g e t a n o t h e r c a l i p e r ,

and

t h a t

h a s l i m i t e d h i s

movements

i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t h i s r i g h t

knee.

H i s knee

has

to be sa fegua rded and phys ica l

work

which involves walk ing or s tanding	now	seems	t o b e	a t a n
end.

This seems t o have been

common ground a t t h e

t r i a l . C o u n s e l

f o r

t h e a p p e l l a n t p u t

t o

him:

"Q.

...

befo re

w e

l e a v e t h a t s u b j e c t b e c a u s e

I

don ' t want

it

t o b e h u r t f u l t o

you.

But

you yourse l f ,

I ' m s u r e ,

by

now

-

t e l l m e

i f I ' m wrong - have come

t o t h e

conclus ion

have you not

t h a t i f

you

p e r s i s t i n t r y i n g

t o g e t j o b s i n v o l v i n g p h y s i c a l e f f o r t ,

by

and

large

o v e r t h e y e a r s y o u l r e j u s t n o t g o i n g t o

make it?

A.

T h a t ' s

t r u e .

Q.

And

y o u l r e g o i n g t o

do worse than that .

You ' re go ing to encourage your knee to ge t worse sooner than it might otherwise?

I,

A.

Yes.

The

evidence adduced

a t t h e t r i a l

showed

t h a t h i s p r o s p e c t s

of

employment were minimal.

The l e a r n e d

t r i a l

j u d g e

f o u n d :

"The

realistic

p o s i t i o n

i s t h a t i n t he A u s t r a l i a n

C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y

there

i s no

a v a i l a b l e

economic

o u t l e t f o r t h e p l a i n t l f f

and

t h a t he

1s

f o r

practical

p u r p o s e s

t o t a l l y

i n c a p a c i t a t e d .

"

The

f i n d i n g was

amply

suppor ted by evidence and

it founded

h is Honour ' s assessment

of

t h e damages

f o r economic

loss.

.

./5

I

5.

The

r e l e v a n t p a s s a g e i n h i s H o n o u r ’ s r e a s o n s r e a d s :

“It is

r e a s o n a b l e t o

assume

t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f

would bu t fo r h i s acc iden t have worked

till

t h e

age of

65

yea r s .

H e

is p resen t ly aged

20

so

t h a t

t h e C o u r t i n

my

o p i n i o n s h o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e

d i m i n u t i o n o f e a r n i n g c a p a c l t y f o r

up

t o

4 5

yea r s .

Using

a c t u a r i a l t a b l e s

as a

guide only one

sees

t h a t ,

after

h e a v i l y d i s c o u n t i n g h i s p r e s e n t

weekly

n e t t e a r n i n g s f r o m

$130

t o

$100 and allowing

a

p e r i o d

of

40

y e a r s i n s t e a d o f t h e p r o b a b l e

45

y e a r s , t h e c a p i t a l

sum

r e q u i r e d

t o b e i n v e s t e d

a t

6% so

as t o r e t u r n

t o t h e p l a i n t i f f

a

sum

of

$100

p.w.

would t o t a l

i n e x c e s s o f

$88 ,000 .

Th i s

example,

i n my

op in ion , works heav i ly aga ins t t he

p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e v i c l s s i t u d e s o f

l i f e b u t

is

a

guide

t o

wha t f igu re

is

r e a s o n a b l e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n

unde r t h i s head .

”

This passage

i s

a f f e c t e d

by

an e r ro r wh ich a rose f rom

a

m i s p r i n c i n t h e

6% t ab le s f rom which h i s

Honour

took

a

m u l t i p l i e r .

H i s Honour

a d o p t e d

t h e f i g u r e

of

880 as t h e

m u l t i p l i e r o f t h e w e e k l y n e t t e a r n i n g s

loss

i n o r d e r t o

a r r i v e a t t h e capital

sum

of

$88,000,

w h e r e a s t h e c o r r e c t

m u l t i p l i e r

is

808

(see t a b l e

I n

40

A . L . J . 2 4 3 ) .

The

co r rec t ca l cu la t ion based on

$100

p e r

week

n e t t e a r n i n g s

y i e l d s $80 ,800,

n o t

$88 ,000 .

It was

f u r t h e r

s u b m i t t e d

t h a t t h e

$100 p e r week

was

i tself

er roneous ly generous

t o

t h e p l a i n t i f f .

H i s Honour

a r r i v e d

a t t h i s f i g u r e

by

d iscount ing an average ne t t weekly earn ings f igure

of

$130

which he arr ived

a t a s f o l l o w s :

“If

t h e p l a i n t i f f

had not

m e t w i t h t h l s a c c i d e n t

he would no doubt be

still

working

with

t h e

Canberra Grammar

School.

On

t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s

hls

earnings would,

a t t h e

time

of

t h e h e a r i n g

o f t h e

case,

approximate

$122 n e t t p e r week.

Llkewise

he

would have earned

a n a d d l t i o n a l

amount each

footbal l season which would have

i n c r e a s e d h i s a v e r a g e n e t t w e e k l y e a r n i n g s t o

about

$130.

. .

./6

6.

It

a p p e a r s t h a t h i s H o n o u r ' s f i g u r e o f

$130

was

too h igh .

Although

the evidence

is n o t p r e c i s e ,

it

a p p e a r s t h a t ,

a t

the da t e o f j udgmen t , t he r e sponden t ' s ne t t ea rn ings wou ld

have been

less by $10

per week

o r t h e r e a b o u t s t h a n h i s

Honour found.

It is p o s s i b l e , as Deane J.

shows,

so t o

a d j u s t t h e l e a r n e d

trial

judge ' s assessment of

damages

as-

t o

e l i m i n a t e t h e i n f l u e n c e

of

t h e m i s p r i n t e d m u l t i p l i e r

and

of

the misconcep t ion a s

t o t h e n e t t weekly earnings

of

the respondent . That can be done by ca lcu la t ing

a

new

f i g u r e i n p l a c e o f t h e

$88,000

which

h i s Honour used

t o

guide him,

and by reducing the award by the

same amount

8

,

as

t h e new

f i g u r e fa l l s s h o r t o f

$88,000.

A l though

tha t

I

e x e r c i s e r e s u l c s i n a n

award

which

I

cons ide r appropr i a t e ,

I

r e a c h t h a t r e s u l t b y

a

d i f f e r e n t p a t h .

E r r o r s i n t h e f a c t o r s u s e d t o c a l c u l a t e t h e

gu id ing f igu re o f

$88,000

do not necessar i ly demonst ra te

e i t h e r t h a t t h a t f i g u r e

is

an inappropr ia te gu ide ,

or

t h a t t h e

award of the learned

trial

judge

was

a f f e c t e d

by

e r r o r b e c a u s e h e u s e d t h e f i g u r e

of

$88,000

as

a

guide.

When

a

f i g u r e is s a i d t o b e u s e d

as a

guide ,

it is

d i f f i c u l t t o a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r

it

d e t e r m i n e s t h e f i n a l

allowance for economic

loss, or whe the r

it merely

confirms

an

allovrance

which

t h e

t r i a l

j u d g e

d e t e r m i n e s

by

I

r e f e r e n c e

t o

o t h e r

f a c t o r s .

However,

i n

t h e c o n t e x t

of

t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l j u d g e ' s r e a s o n s f o r j u d g m e n t ,

I

t h i n k

his Honour 's award must be taken to

reflect

t h a t g u i d i n g

f igu re , and rha t t he f ina l award con ta ins an economic

loss

.

. ./7

7.

I

which

is n e i t h e r much more n o r much

less than $88,000.

Given

t h a t t h e c a l c u l a t i o n

of

t h a t f i g u r e

w a s

e r roneous ,

t h e q u e s t i o n

is whether $88,000

is n e v e r t h e l e s s

an

appropriate

a l l o w a n c e f o r p o s t - t r i a l e c o n o m i c l o s s

occasioned	by	t h e d e s t r u c t i o n	o€ t he r e sponden t ’ s ea rn ing
capac i ty .

The answer

t o t h i s q u e s t i o n r e q u i r e s

an

estimate t o be made

of

the n e t t value

t o the r e sponden t

o f t h e e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y w h i c h h a s

been

d e s t r o y e d ( B r i t i s h

Transpor t Commission v. Gourley 119561

A.C.165)

t a k i n g

i n t o a c c o u n t t h e v i c i s s i t u d e s

of

l i fe

(Bresa tz

v.

P r z i b i l l a

(1962)

108 C.L.R.541

a t pp.543,544).

The v i c i s s i t u d e s

inc lude the l i ke l ihood o f any

rea l

improvement

i n the

re sponden t ’ s ea rn ings

i f

he had not been in jured ,expressed

as a lump sum i n t h e c u r r e n c y

of

t h e day when

judgment is

given

(O‘Brien

v. McKean (1968)

118

C.L.R.540).

The

r equ i r ed

estimate

i s

n o t n e c e s s a r i l y

t o b e b a s e d e i t h e r

upon

t h e n e t t e a r n i n g s

a t t h e time

o f i n j u r y

or t h e

e s t i m a t e d n e t t e a r n m g s w h i c h t h e p r e - i n j u r y

employment

would have yielded

a t the date of judgment , though

a

reason

t o depar t

f rom

these

bases

should appear .

The

r e sponden t ’ s w i l l i ngness

to

work,

h i s “courage , s to i c i sm

a n d t e n a c i t y ” , h i s p e r s o n a l i t y

and

s p o r t i n g c o n t a c t s

are

fac to r s wh ich war ran t an

estmate

o f t h e v a l u e

of

t h e

respondent ’s earn ing capac i ty which

is

n o t r e s t r i c t e d

t o a

c a l c u l a t i o n

of

t h e n e t t e a r n m g s

from

a

job which

he

he ld

a t the

age

o f

17 .

Hls

Honour

t h o u g h t

t h a t

a n

...

/8

8.

assessment based on

$100 p e r week n e t t "works heavily

a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e v i c i s s i t u d e s o f

l i fe"

and

I

r e s p e c t f u l l y a g r e e .

H i s Honour

approached

t h e assessment

of

economic

loss

b y e s t i m a t i n g t h e f u t u r e

n e t t

ea rn ings

which

t h e

exercise

o f t h e d e s t r o y e d e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y

would

have

produced

(see Sharman v. Evans

(1977)

13 A.L.R.

57

a t

p .78 ) , and by d i scoun t ing fu tu re expec ted

n e t t

ea rn ings

(see Dessent

v.

Commonwealth of Australia (1977)

13 B.L.R.437

a t p .447) .

In

mak

ing

the

ca l cu la t ion

required by an approach

of

t h i s k i n d ,

it

wou ld no t be r igh t

to adopt

any

sum below $100 p e r week.

O f coursel

s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e s i n

real

earnings which can be

p r e d i c t e d o n l y f o r t h e d i s t a n t f u t u r e l o s e

some

s i g n i f i c a n c e when	t h e i r v a l u e	i s	discounted back	t o t h e
date of judgment.

It

is

n e c e s s a r y t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e

of d i scount ing accords wi th , and

is

n o t

assumed

t o

replace,

the p r inc ip l e s wh ich gove rn the a s ses smen t

of

damages

for

p e r s o n a l l n j u r l e s .

E l s e d l s c o u n t i n g may

y i e l d a n

amount

of	b e g u i l i n g b u t s p u r l o u s s p e c i f i c l t y .

Why

i s

it

necessa ry

t o d i s c o u n t f u t u r e n e t t

e a r n m g s a t a l l ? C l e a r l y

It

i s because

the award

of

damages

r e s u l t s i n t h e i m m e d i a t e

payment

of

a

lump

sum

which, by

some form of

investment ,

may

earn increments

between the

time of

t h a t payment and

t h e t i m e when

t h e

lost earnings

would

have

been

paid

in

the

future .

To

g ive

I

t he in-Jured par ty an undiscounted equiva len t of fu ture

I

.

-/9

I

9.

n e t t

ea rn ings

would over-compensate him because he would

be awarded

also the increments

t o t h e c a p i t a l

sum.

Discoun t ing r educes the cap i t a l

sum

so

t h a t , w i t h t h e

increments it may

earn over

t i m e ,

it could provide

no

more	than the r ecu r ren t paymen t s o f ne t t ea rn ings wh ich

would have been received over the

same

time

i f t h e

p l a i n t i f f ’ s e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y h a d

n o t

b e e n t o r t i o u s l y

des t royed

or

impaired.

The

rate

o f d i s c o u n t i n g t o b e

adopted

is,

w i t h i n

limits,

a

m a t t e r o f d i s c r e t i o n

(Hawkins v. Lindsley (1974) 49 A.L.J.R.5).

But

t he re

are

some

p r inc ip l e s wh ich shou ld be bo rne in

mind

i n s e l e c t i n g

an appropr i a t e

rate.

Of

major

importance

is t h e p r i n c i p l e

s e l a t i n g t o t h e r e l e v a n c e o f i n f l a t i o n t o t h e

award

of

damages

f o r p e r s o n a l

i n j u r y .

I n

O ’ B r i e n v.

McKean,

supra ,

Barwick C . J .

s a i d

(a t pp.546,547):

“The

earning capaci ty which has been

lost

or

d iminished cannot ,

in

my

opin ion , command any

g rea t e r compensa t ion because in fu tu re the

purchasing power of the nominal

sum

it

p r e s e n t l y

e a r n s

will

be ma in ta ined by an inc rease in the

nominal

reward

for

i ts

e x e r c i s e .

I n d e e d ,

i f

t h a t were capac i ty wh ich has been lo s t shou ld be wor th

n o t l i k e l y t o h a p p e n , t h e p r e s e n t

much

less because

i t s e f f e c t i v e r e t u r n i n

terms

of what

it will

purchase th roughou t t he fu tu re

would be

a d imin i sh ing quan t i ty .

”

If

i n f l a t i o n t h r e a t e n s t h e

real

va lue

of

t h e judgment

c r e d i t o r ’ s c a p i t a l f u n d ,	the	remedy	is ,	i n a	sense,	i n
h i s own hands:

I,

For

t h e loss

of

a

p r e s e n t c a p a c i t y , w i t h

a l l

its

i n h e r e n t p r o b a b i l i t i e s ,

t h e

i n j u r e d p e r s o n

is

t

o

be presently compensated by an immediate payment

of money.

Upon t h e award

being

made,

t h e

s u c c e s s f u l

,

.

./l0

10.

plaintiff becomes entitled to that money free

to do

with it what he wlll. He can protect himself

against the possibilities of continuing

or increasing

inflation to the same extent as any other citizen

with an investible fund. "

A discounting rate cannot therefore be appropriate if

it

denies to the judgment creditor the opportunity to protect his capital from inflation, and to secure for himself an

undiminishing

effective

return

for

his

lost

earning

\ -

capacity. To the extent

to which commercial rates

of

interest contain

a percentage reflecting and covering

inflation, they are too high for use

in discounting future

nett earnings, for it is only to the extent that investment

of the undiscounted

sum may eaxn an increment more than

inflation that the

sum is required to be discounted.

Otherwise the assessment would deny fair compensation. The

use of the higher rate would diminish the undiscounted

sum

not only by the amount

f the real increments which that

sum might earn, but also by an equivalent of the nominal

amounts which, when earned, will provide the plaintiff with

the effective return appropriate to his

lost earning

capacity. Adhering entirely to the principle expressed

in O'Brien v. McKean, supra, as this Court is bound to do

(Jacobs v. Harley (1976) 50 A.L.J.R.519 per Gibbs J. at

p.5231, it is necessary to choose

a dlscounting rate well

below the rates currently available (ibid., per Murphy

J.

at p.528; and see Beneke v. Franklin [l9751

1 N.S.W.L.R.571

and Cookson v. Knowles L19781

2 All E.R.604 at ~p.615~616).

There is a further consideration of lesser

importance.

It 1 s necessary to approach the assessment of

11.

damages with an awareness

of

t h e t a x a b i l i t y of

income

from

an invested fund, though one ought not

t o

endeavour

t o quant i fy and

allow

an amount

t o c o v e r t h e

tax l i a b i l i t y

(Petroleum

and Chemlcal

Corporat

ion (Austral

ia)

Pty.

Limited v.

Morris

(1973) 47 A.L.J.R.484

a t ~ p . 4 8 5 ~ 4 8 6 ) .

It is r i g h t t o b e a r i n

mind

t h a t a

capital sum cannot

p r o v i d e t h e e q u i v a l e n t

of

f u t u r e

n e t t ea rn ings

i f

t h e

I

assumed

y i e l d , r e q u i r e d f o r t h a t p u r p o s e ,

is

taxable.

The inc idence of

tax is t h e r e f o r e a factor whlch may

l eg i t ima te ly be t aken in to accoun t i n choos ing

a

rate

f o r

t h e p u r p o s e

of

d i scoun t ing .

These

cons ide ra t ions

would lead

m e t o adopt a

d i s c o u n t i n g rate below

6% i n

t h e p r e s e n t

case,

i f

I

were

to approach the a s ses smen t

of

econon ic lo s s

i n t h e same

way

a s t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l

I

judge approached the quest

ion.

However,

I p r e f e r t o

exercise

a

d i s c r e t i o n a r y

judgment ,

ra ther

than

make

a ca l cu la t ion , and

I would

t e n t a t i v e l y

assess

t h e v a l u e

of

t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s l o s t

ea rn ing capac i ty f rom the da t e

of

judgment

a t $90 ,000 .

I

t h e n c o n f l r m t h a t f i g u r e

by

a

c a l c u l a t i o n w h i c h , i n

my

view,

is

by no means generous

t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t : u s i n g

!

5':

t a b l e s ,

t h e

p r e s e n t

v a l u e

of

$100 per week

f o r 40 y e a r s

!

i s c a l c u l a t e d t o b e

$89,200

(see t a b l e s i n

33

A.L.J.28).

This ten ta t ive assessment of economlc

loss would

l eave	$ 6 0 , 0 0 0	t o c o v e r	t h e o t h e r h e a d s	of	damage.	I	I
I

t h i n k

t h a t

is too

high.

Al lowing,

as

one

must,

a

!

s u b s t a n t i a l

amount

f o r t h e i n i t i a l p a i n a n d s u f f e r m g a n d

. .

./l2

,

/

12. !

the trauma of his hospital treatment and the loss

of

amenities, it must yet be remembered that his injuries

are those

of a man with

a damaged but usable right lower

limb. The injury to that limb is severe, but his

general bodlly functions are otherwise not gravely impaired.

I would place $45,000 as

a tentative amount to cover these

heads of damage.

I would add $8,364.50 being the

sum

I

agreed as necessary to cover the pre-trial economic

loss.

The sum of these tentative figures is $143,364.50.

The method adopted by Deane

J. leads him mathematically to

$144,364.50. That figure appears to me to be appropriate.

I would allow the appeal with costs, and order that the

amount of the judgment for the respondent given by the

Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory be varied

by the substitution	of the sum of $144,364.50 for the sum
of $158,364.50.

!

Assoclate

.	I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1

AUSTRALIAN	CAPITAL	TERRITORY	1	No. F.C. 17 of 1977
)

REGISTRY

1

ON APPEAL PROM THE SlJF'REhIE COURT OF THE

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN : PAUL EDWARD ARUSTRONG

a n i n f a n t

by

h i s n e x t

f r i e n d a n d f a t h e r

DARCY ALLAN ARhISTRONG

Plaintiff (Respondent)

-

AND :

ANDREW YlILLIAhl RUDD

Defendant

(Appel lant)

CORAPYl:

Brennan, Deane and iIcGregor JJ.

I

REASONS

FOR

JUDGhENT

+

DEANL;: J:

On 21 July 1974, t h e

r e s p o n d e n t ,

who

was

t h e n

1

7

y e a r s o l d ,

was

a

passenge r

i n a

car,

d r i v e n b y t h e a p p e l l a n t ,

which c rashed through the

wooden

r a l l i n g s

of

a

b r i d g e o v e r

B e l l ' s Creek Araluen

some

75 miles

out of Canberra and

f e l l

some

f o u r t e e n

feet

i n t o

t h e c r e e k b e d b e l o w .

A

6"

X

4"

wooden

p o s t p e n e t r a t e d t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s

body

a t

o r a b o u t t h e l e v e l

of

-2-

the abdomen and protruded

through

111s back.

The respondent

remained

Impaled upoc

t h i s p o s t

for a

per iod of

some

42 hours.

Apart

from

a n

i n i t i a l l o s s o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s f o r

some

f i v e

or

ten minutes , he

was

fu l ly consc ious

throughout

the whole

of

t h a t

p e r i o d .

H e

s u P € e r e d

s e r i o u s

I n J u r i e s .

The

respondent sued

the appel lan t

I n

t h e

Supreme

Cour t o f the

Australian

C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y f o r

damages

f o r

n e g l i g e n c e . L i a b i l i t y

was

no<

d l sputed

and

in te r locutory

Judgment was

s i g n e d

i n d e i a u l t

of

a

deIence.

The matter

came on f o r

d e t e r m i n a t i o n

of

damages.

The

l ea rned

t r ia l

Judge

awarded

damages

i n t h e amount

of

$158,364.50.

The

a p p e l l a n t

a p p e a l s t o

this

Court

on

t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e

amount

01

damages so awarded was unreasonably high.

His

Honour 's Judgment coptains

a

g r a p h i c d e s c r i p t l o n

o f t h e p l i g h t a n d

suffering

of the respondent dur ing the

43

hour period during whlch he remained impaled

on

t h e

wooden

pos t

and of cfPorts which

the

initially

unsuccessh l , and € -Lna l ly success fu l ,

were made t o move him.

H i s Honour's concluslon

t h a t the respondent

"was

in

extreme paln

throughout"

was warranted

by the exper lence as an

ev idence

31s

Honour's

d e s c r i p t i o n

o

f

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t ' s

I

"horrific

ordea l"

was

an appos i te

one.

Af te r he

was f i n a l l y moved,

the respondent was

taken, by ambulance, t o Canberra

Hospital .

X-rays

t a k e n

s h o r t l y

I

a f t e r his

a r r i v a l showed

g r o s s comminution

01 t h e r i g h t

l l l um

and

a

s e p a r a t i o n oP

the

symphysispubls .

The

wooden

p o s t

whlch

had lmpaled the respondent had not been removed from

h

l

s

body

I

-3-

but had Opera t ion under genera l anaes the t ic

been

sawn

t h r o u g h , i n o r d e r t o e n a b l e

h i s

release.

was

carried

ou t

t o

remove

i t .

During t h e ope ra t ion it was

found t h a t t h e femoral

nerve

had

been widely divided

w l t h

ragged contused ends. There

w a s

complete

disrupt

ion

of

the

r i g h t

sacro-iliac

jo in t .

Subsequent

t r e a t m e n t i n c l u d e d s k i n g r a f t i n g t o

t h e

abdomen

area,

t h e

donor

s i te b e i n g

t h e

r i g h t t h i g h .

The respondent was confined

t o b e d , i n C a n b e r r a H o s p i t a l , f o r

a

p e r i o d

of

f i v e t o

s i x

I

months.

I n the course of

h i s Judgment,

the l ea rned t r i a l

judge ou t l ined

t h e

respondent’s background:

l1

The

p l a i n t i f f

l e f t

s c h o o l

a t

t h e

end

of

t h i r d year

a t

t h e

age

of

15.

H i s

s c h o l a s t i c

r ecord was

be low

average .

He

was

a

s t r o n g

h e a l t h y

a t h l e t i c l a d

who

was

k e e n t o s e c u r e

and

pursue

ou t -door

employmen t .

Be fore

h i s

acc iden t

he

was

work ing as

a

groundsman /greenkeeper a t

t he

Canberra Grammar School .

The

school

bursar

gave

e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f

had

p e r f o r m e d h i s

work v e r y l i k e l y t h a n n o t t h a t b u t f o r h i s a c c i d e n t

s a t i s f a c t o r i l y

and

t h a t i t was

more

he

would

have

reached

leading

hand

status

i n a

r e l -

a t i v e t y

s h o r t

p e r i o d .

T

h

e

o u t l o o k

b e f o r e

h i s

,

z c c i d e n t

was

t h a t

t h i s

j o b

was

secure so

long

as

the

Canberra

Grammar

School

remained”.

His

Honour‘s findings of

t h e

physical consequences

of

t h e i n j u r i e s which

t h e respondent suf fe red

were:

l

I I

As

a

r e s u l t of

t h e s e

i n j u r i e s

t h e

p l a i n t i f f

s u f f e r s

p e r m a n e n t

d i s a b i l i t i e s .

He

has

t o wear

a

r i g h t l e g c a l i p e r w i t h

a

t o e r a i s i n g

d e v i c e

t o

p r e v e n t

f o o t

d r o p .

T h e r e

i s

l o s s

o f

s e n s a t i o n

i n t h e

t h i g h

and

lower

l eg

and he

walks

w i t h a marked

l i m p .

He

c a z n o t run.

He

has

a t t e m c t e d

t o d i s c a r d

t h e c a l i p e r

from

t i m e

t o

t i m e

but

h a s

f o u n d

t h a t

t h e k n e e

l e t s h i m

down

on

we igh t

b e a r i n g .

He

h a s

s u f f e r e d

and

w i l l a l w a y s

s u f f e r

c o n s i d e r a b l e p a i n

i n h i s

r i g h t

l e g ,

t h e

r i g h t k n e e

and

h i p

j o i n t s ,

The

p e l v i s

and

lower

back.

The

- 4 -

medica2

evidence

i s

t h a t

t h e s e d i s a b i l i t i e s a r e

permanent . Further it i s more probable than not t h a t w i t h i n t e n t o f i f t e e n y e a r s o s t e o - a r t h r i t i c changes i n h i s r i g h t k n e e j o i n t will be such

t h a t o p e r a t i v e

t r e a t m e n t

wilt

b e r e q u i r e d e i t h e r

t o

r e p t a c e t h e

j o i n t w i t h a n a r t i f i c i a t o n e

or

t o

a r t h r o d e s e

t h e

j o i n t .

Ia

a d d i t i o n

h e

h a s

g r o s s l y

d i s f i g u r i n g s c a r s t o h i s

abdomen

and

tower

back

which

cause

him

considerable

embarrassment"

.

None

of

t h e s e f i n d i n g s

was

sub jec t ed

t o

s p e c i f i c a t t a c k b e f o r e

us . Ii'hile e f f e c t e d , a l l e v i a t e p a i n i n t h e j o i n t , t h e e v i d e n c e

a r t h r o d e s n g o f

t h e knee

j o in t

migh t ,

i f

it

were

was

t h a t

it could r e s p o n d e n t

well

i n t e n s i f y t h e p a i n I n t h e

lower

back which the

a l r e a d y

s u f f e r s .

The

evidence

of

the

respondent ,

which

was

not cha l lenged in c ross -examinat ion ,

was

t h a t

un less

h i s l e g was l e g p r e i r e n t s h i s s t a n d i n g f o r

l o c k e d i n t h e u n c o m f o r t a b l e c a l i p e r , p a i n

i n

the

more

than

a

q u a r t e r

of

an hour

or walking for more than a qua r t e r o f

a mile.

I t

is

a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e

main

component

of

t h e damages

which were awarded t o the respondent

was damage for diminut ion

of e a r n i n g h i s Honour

c a p a c i t y .

I n

c o n s i d e r m g

t h i s

h e a d o f

damage,

sa id : -

.I

! I . .

.

t h e C o u r t a c c e p t s

t h e e v i d e n c e

t h a t

on

t h e

p r o b a b i l i t i e s

it

was

l i k e t y t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o

h i s r e m u n e r a t i o n a s

a

groundsman/greenkeeper

the

p l a i n t i f f

would have earned moneys as

a

p r o f e s s i o n a l

Rugby

League

footba2Zer.

A t t h e

t i m e

of

h i s

a c c i d e n t h e

was

c a p t a i n

of

an under

l8

t eam play ing

c o m p e t i t i o n

l e a g u e

f o o t b a l 2

i n

t h e A u s t r a l i a n

C a p i t a l

T e r r i t o r y .

I

a c c e p t

t h a t

h e

was

a

v e r y

t a l e n t e d f o o t b a l l e r

who

had

t h e a b i 2 i t y t o

become

a

f i r s t - g r a d e s e n i o r p l a y e r

i n

t h e T e r r i t o r y

w i t h t h e p o t e n t i a l

of

s e c u r i n g

a

s p o t i n

a

C i t y

c l u b

s i d e .

T h i s

s p o r t

and

i t s

o p p o r t u n i t i e s

f o r

any

f u t u r e a d v a n c e m e n t s

t h a t

do

become

a v a i l a b t e

t o

p r o m i n e n t	s p o r t s m e n h a v e b e e n	l o s t	t o	t h e p l a i n t i f f
f o r e v e r .

The chances o f h im secur ing ga in fu l

!

- 5 -

empZoyment

w i t h

t h e g r o s s d i s a b i l i t i e s

t h a t h e

p r e s e n t l y c a r r i e s

and

which

w i l l

i n c r e a s e a s

t h e

y e a r s

go

by ,

i ndeed

l ook

g r i m .

He

l a c k s

t h e

a b i l i t y

t o hoZd

down

a

c l e r i c a l j o b

if

one were avai lable .

Ile	h a s p e r s i s t e n t l y a t t e m p t e d t o g a i n s u i t a b l e

e m p l o y m e n t .

F i r s t ,

h i s

b r o t h e r - i n - l a w ,

a

plumber-

d r a i n e r i n

a

sma l l

way

gave h im

l igh t

l abour ing work .

He w o r k e d u l t i m a t e l y b r o k e

w i t h

h i s

c a l i p e r

f i t t e d .

The

c a l i p e r

and

it

was

f o u n d a f t e r

a

f a i r t r i a l

t h a t t h e

work

was

t o o

much

f o r

t h e p l a i n t i f f w i t h

h i s

d i s a b i l i t i e s .

Re

h a s b e e z r e g i s t e r e d f o r

work

w i t h

t h e

Commonwealth Employment Service.

The

o f f i c e r - i n - c h a r g e o f

t h a t

s e r v i c e

i n

Canberra gave ev idence

tha t

i n

t h e A u s t r a l i a n

Cap i ta2 Terr i to ry and Queanbeyan area

i

n

March

1 9 7 7

t h e r e

was

1 7 5 8

peop le

reg i s t e red as unemployed

and

l o o k i n g f o r

work

i n t h e u n s k i l l e d

and

semi-

s k i l l e d

b r a c k e t .

A g a i n s t

t h a t

t h e r e

w e r e

o n l y

5 1

I

j o b s

a v a i l a b l e .

T h i s

h

e

s t a t e d

means

t h a t

t h e r e

was

an average o f

3 4 . 5

people unemployed

for

ever2

one j o b .

in t h e

c o m p l e t e l y

u n s k i Z l e d

b r a c k e t

t h i s

p e r c e n t a g e

r o s e

t o

4 2 . 5 .

The

p l a i n t i f f h i m s e Z f f o u n d

a

j o b w i t h

a

b u i l d i n g

company,

E g l i t i s

C o n s t r u c t i o n s ,

a s s e m b -

l i n g

t u b u l a r

s c a f f o l d i n g .

He

worked

a t

t h i s

j o b

w i t h o u t h i s c a l i p e r b u t

it

was only

a

m a t t e r o f t i m e

be fore he

had

h i s e m p l o y e r s

f o u n d

t h a t

t h e

p l a i n t i f f ' s d i s a b i l i t i e s p r e v e n c e d h i m f r o m d o i n g

, .

t h i s

w o r k .

B u t

i c d o e s

d e m o n s t r a t e

t h e

p l a i n t i f f ' s

c u r a g e ,

s t o i c i s m a n d

t s n a c i t y .

I

I f	t h e p l a i n t i f f h a d n o t m e t w i t h t h i s

accident he would

no

doubt be

s t i l l working w i t h

the

Canberra

Grammar

S C ~ J O Z . On

t h e

p r o b a b i l i t i e s

h i s

e a r n i n g s w o u l d , a t

t h e

t ime

o f

t h e h e a r i n g o f

t he case , he would have earned an additional amount	approx imate	$ 2 3 2	n e t t	p e r	w e e k .	L i k e w i s e
each

I

foo tba l l s eason wh ich wou ld have

increased h i s a6erage

n e t t w e e k l y e a r n i n g s

t o a b o u t

$130.

I t was

s u b m i t t e d

on

t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s b e h a l f

t h a t

when

c o n s i d e r i n g w h a t a m o u n t o f t h e t o t a l

amount

o f general damages should be cons idered as

r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e d i m i n u t i o n

of

e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y i n

t h i s p a r t i b u l a r c a s e

t h e C o u r t s h o u l d n o t d i s c o u n t

any such i s s i t u d e s o f

amount

t o

a n y

l a r g e ? e x t e n t

f o r

t h e

v i c -

l

l i f e a s t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s b e e n d e p r i v e d

I

o f t h e c h a n c e o f a d v a n c i n g i n h i s c h o s e n f i e l d

05

s p o r t

and

so

h a s

l o s t n o t o n l y $ h e p r e s t i g e

t h a t

s u c c e s s , w h i c h

i n h i s c a s e

was

more

probable

than

n o t ,

h r i n g s

t o g e t h e r w i t h

t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s

f o r

e a r n -

ings

, therefrom.

In my o p i Q i o n

t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

o f

t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e

do

warrant

such

an

approach

<

t o a

l i m i t e d e x t e n t .

I t i s c l e a r

t h a t

on

t h e

e v i d e n c e

t h

!

p l a i n t i f f

i s

an odd l o t .

The r e a l i s t i c

F O S i t i O n

-6-

i s t h a t i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y t h e r e

i s no

a v a i l a b l e e c o n o m i c o u t k t

f o r

t h e p l a i n t i f f

and	t h a t h e i s f o r p r a c t i c a Z p u r p o s e s t o t a l l y

i n c a p a c i t a t e d .

W h e t h e r

t h i s

p o s i t i o n

w i l l change

i f c e s s i o n

t h e g e n e r a l t r e n d o f t h e p r e s e n t e c o n o m i c

m-

i s r e v e r s e d

i n

t h e

f x t u r e

i s d o u b t f u l .

The

I

C o u r t h a s

t o a s s e s s

damages

a t

presen t day va lues .

I t i i n f l a t i o n or

s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f

c o n s t r a i n e d b y a u t h o r i t y n o t t o c o n s i d e r f u t u r e

d e p r e s s i o n .

I t i s reasonab le

t o

a s sume

would

b u t for

h i s a c c i d e n t

have

worked till about the

age

of 6 5 y e a r s .

He

i s p r e -

s e n t l y a g e d

2 0

so

t h a t t h e

Court

i n my

op in ion

shou ld

c o n s i d e r

t h e d i m i n u t i o n o f e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y

f o r

up

t o

4 5

y e a r s .

Us ing

a c t u a r i a l

t a b l e s

a s

a

gu ide

on ly

o n e s e e s w e e k l y n e t t e a r n i n g s

t h a t ,

a f t e r

h e a v i l y d i s c o u n t i n g h i s p r e s e n t

f rom

$130

t o

$100

and

a l l o w i n g

a p e r i o d y e a r s ,

of

4 0

y e a r s i n s t e a d

o f

t h e p r o b a b l e

4 5

t h e c a p i t a l

sum

r e q x i r e d

t o b e

i n v e s t e d a t

6 8

so

a s t o r e t u r n t o t h e p l a i n t i f f

a

sum

o f

$100

? . W .

w o u l d

t o t a l

i n e x c e s s

of

$ 8 8 , 0 0 0 .

Th i s

example ,

z n my f o r t h e v i c i s s i t u d e s o f l i f e b u t i s

o p i i l i o n , w o r k s h e a v i l y a g a i n s t

t h e p l a i n t i f f

a

g u i d e

t o w h a t

f i g u r e i s a s s e s s i n g a proper and adequate

r e a s o n a b l e

f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n u n d e r

t h i s

head.

Whichaver

way

one

approaches

the

problem

o f

sum t o compensate

t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e d i m i n u t i o n

of

h i s e a r n i n g

c a p a c i t y

it

i s c Z e a r

t h a t

a

subs tan t ia l amoun t

shou ld be a l lowed under

th i s head

of

damage".

These

remarks

on

the question

of damages for dlminut-

ion

of

ea rn ing capac i ty

were

s u b j e c t e d

t o

t h r e e s e p a r a t e

grounds of

a t t a c k .

First,

it was

s u b m i t t e d

t h a t h l s H o n o u r ' s

gene ra l approach to the ques t ion

of

t h e e x t e n t

t o which

t h e

,

respondent ' s earn ing capac i ty had been d iminished

was

over-

I

4

!

pess imis t ic .

Second,

it

was

s u b m i t t e d

t h a t

t h e

f i g u r e

of

$130.00

p e r week

which was

t a k e n t o r e p r e s e n t

what

would have

been

the

r e s p o n d e n t ' s l i k e l y a v e r a g e n e t e a r n i n g s

a t

t h e

time

of

t r i a l i f

it

had not been €or the acc ident

was

over-

s t a t e d by

some

$10.00 p e r week.

Th i rd ,

it was

s a i d t h a t

t h e

c a p i t a l sum

requ i r ed

t o be inves ted

a t 6% p e r

annum to

r e t u r n a sum

of

$100.00 p e r week

f o r 40 y e a r s 1s $SO,SOO.OO

and not	a	f i g u r e ' i n e x c e s s	of	$88,000.00	as s t a t e d by	h i s
Honour.

-7-

I g n o r i n g , f o r

the

moment,

the

second and

th i rd

grounds of

a t t a c k ,

I

am o f t h e

view t h a t h i s

Honour's

gene ra l

approach

t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e e x t e n t

of

d iminut ion of the

r e sponden t ' s ea rn ing capac i ty

was

warranted

by

t he ev ldence

before

him and accorded with

the manner

i n which

t h e case was

conducted

on

behalf

of

t h e a p p e l l a n t .

I t

was

no t

con te s t ed ,

on

behalf

of

t h e a p p e l l a n t

a t

t h e h e a r i n g , t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t

I

was,

i n

effect ,

r e n d e r e d u n f i t f o r a n y

work

i n v o l v i n g a c t l v e

phys ica l

l abour .

In s t ead ,

i t

was

s u b m i t t e d

t h a t

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

who had l e f t school a t t h e age of

15 years (which

was

t h e

- .

ear l ies t

age

p e r m i s s i b l e ) w i t h o u t o b t a i n i n g h i s S c h o o l C e r t i f i c a t e ,

'

s h o u l d r e t u r n t o h i s s t u d i e s , o b t a i n t h e H i g h e r S c h o o l

Cert i f icate

a n d s e e k t o o b t a i n

clerical

employment.

The respondent was i n t h e

"D Grade"

i n h i s form when

he l e f t school .

He

had d i s l iked

schoo l

for t h e "few

years"

b e f o r e h e

l e f t .

The

Manager

o f a n o f f i c e

of

t h e

Commonwealth

Employment

Se rv ice (Mr.

Carlon) gave

evidence

as

t o t h e c o n t e n t

I

of

a

w r i t t e n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r

employment whlch

the respondent

. had made:

l'.

. .

He

h a s g o t

-

a s e v i d e n c e d b y t h e c a r d

he

has

g o t v e r y cou td on ty

poor

r e a d i n g and

wri t ing a b i t i t y .

He

f i l l o u t

t h o s e s e c t i o n s

of

t h e c a r d a t

t h i s i n i t i a t t i m e

he

came

t o us

and

peop te

f rom

then

on

had

t o f i l l k h e r e s t o f t h e c a r d f o r

him

. . . ' l .

I t was

obviously open

t o hls Honour,

on

a s s e s s i n g t h e

respondent

and

t h e

e v i d e n c e , t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p o s s i b i l l r y

of the respondent ' s successfu l ly comple t ing the Higher School

Certif icate was

so

r emote

t ha t

it

could

be

d i s regarded .

Once

tha t conc lus ion

was

r e a c h e d , t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s c a s e

was

conducted

-8-

b e f o r e h i s

Honour

i n a

manner

which

u n d e r l i n e d , r a t h e r t h a n

ques t ioned ,

t he ve ry se r ious d iminu t ion

in ea rn ing capac i ty

which

r e s u l t e d

f r o m

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t ' s

i n j u r i e s .

The

following

extracts from the cross-examination

of

the respondent

by

counsel

for

t h e a p p e l l a n t s h o u l d

serve

t o

i l l u s t r a t e

t h e

p o i n t : -

" Q .

Mr. Armstrong,

you

remember

being,

I

t h i n k ,

warned

by

Dr. Parnbach - and I d o n ' t

t h i n k

warned

i

n

a n y s i n i s t e r s e n s e b u t w a r n e d t h a t

yous

leg

would

ge

t

worse

wi

th

use?

A .

Y e s .

Q .

And

t h a t

y o u ' d

u l t i m a t e l y

h a v e

t o

f a c e

t h e

p r o s -

p e c t

of

c l e r i c a l t y p e

work

-

s o m e t h i n g

t h a t

d i d n ' t

i n v o l v e y o u

i n

any subs tan t iaZ phys i ca l

a c t i v i t y ?

A .

Y e s .

........ .......

Q .

.... b e f o r e we

l e a v e

t h a t

s u b j e c t

b e c a u s e

I

don ' t

wan t

it t o

b

e

i ? u r t f u Z

t o

y o u .

B

u

t

y o u

y o u r s e l f ,

I ' m

s u r e ,

b y

now - t e l l me

if I ' m

wrong - have come t o t h e

conclusion have

you

n o t t h a t

i

f

y o u

p e r s i s t

in

t r y i n g t o g e t j o b s

i n v o l v i n g p h y s i c a l e f f o r t , b y

and

l a r g e o v e r

t h e

y e a r s

y o u ' r e

j u s t

not-

g o i n g

t o

make i t?

A .

T h a t ' s

t r u e .

Q.

And

y o u ' r e

g o i n g

t o

do

w o r s e

t h a n

t h a t .

Y o u ' r e

go ing

to

encourage

your

knee

to

ge

t

worse

sooner

than

it

m i g h t o t h e r w i s e ?

A .

Yes" .

I n t h e r e s u l t ,

I

am

o f

t h e v i e w t h a t

t h e a p p e l l a n t h a s f a i l e d

t o make

good

t h e a t t a c k

on h i s Honour 's general approach t o

d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e e x t e n t t o w h l c h t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s e a r n i n g capacity had been diminished as a r e s u l t o f t h e i n J u r i e s h e s u s t a i n e d .

The

f igure of about

$130.00

p e r week

which

h i s Honour

-9-

accepted

as

r e p r e s e n t i n g

what

t h e r e s p o n d e n t l s p r o b a b l e n e t

weekly earnings would have been

a t t h e time

of

the

t r i a l

i f

t he acc iden t had

not

occurred

is

e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d

by

h l s

Honour t o be

an

approximate

one.

The

evidence

re levant

to

t h a t

f l g u r e was

somewhat

u n s a t i s f a c t o r y a n d t h e t r a n s c r i p t

of

submiss lons wou ld ind ica t e tha t h i s

Honour

was

n o t

given

t h e

b e n e f i t o f a n y t h i n g l l k e t h e a n a l y s i s

of

t h e

re levant

evidence

wh ich sen io r counse l fo r t he appe l l an t p rov ided

on

t h e h e a r i n g

of

the appea l .

I n

t h e l i g h t

of

t h a t a n a l y s i s a n d

making

some

allowance

f o r

minor expenses which would have been

incurred

i n

earn ing

tha t

income,

it is a p p a r e n t

t h a t

a € i g u r e of

“about”

$120.00 per

week

n e t would have

beer,

a more cor rec t mathemat lca l

ou tcome.of	the	re levant	ev idence .	Adopt	ing	the	p ropor t ion	of
-	10

13 which

h l s Honour

a d o p t e d , t h e f i g u r e

of

approximately

$92.00 per

week

would have been more appropriate

as

t h e b a s i s

o f t h e ’ e x e r c i s e i n v o l v i n g a p p l i c a t i o n

of

a c t u a r i a l t a b l e s t h a n

t h e f i g u r e o f

$100.00 p e r week

which was

used.

The

amount

r e q u i r e d t o

be

Inves t ed a t 6% to p roduce

$92.00 p e r week

f o r

40 y e a r s was

$74,336.00.

The

r e f e r e n c e po in t ,

i n s o far

as

actuar ia l

t a b l e s

were

concerned, would, on

the

approach

which

h l s Honour

adopted,

more

appropriately have been

a

f i g u r e

“ i n excess of

$74,000.00“

t h a n t h e I i g u r e

“ i n excess

of

$88,000”

which h l s Honour adopted.

I t is common g round

t ha t ,

appa ren t ly

as a result of a typographical error i n a se t of actuarial

t a b l e s which

was

i n c u r r e n t u s a g e ,

the

f i g u r e “ i n

excess

of

$88,000.00”

was,

i n any event , mathematical ly

wrong

and

shouid

!

have been

$80,800.00.

.

His

Honour

d id no t expres s ly

state t h e amount

which

I

-10-

he concluded

t o b e a p p r o p r i a t e i n r e s p e c t

of

damage

for

diminut ion

of

earning

capaci ty .

After

t h e extract

from his

judgment

set

out above,

he

p roceeded to cons ide r o the r heads

of damage and t o award

an

o v e r a l l g l o b a l

amount

of

$150,000.00,

wlthout

i n t e r n a l

subd iv i s ion ,

i n r e s p e c t

of

a l l damages

o t h e r

than

past

economic

loss .

His Honour s a i d :

I1

In

a d d i t i o n , h i s d i s a b i l i t i e s h a v e

had

and

will

h a v e f o r t h e r e s t

of

h i s l i f e

a

marked

e f f e c t

on

h i s

e n j o y m e n t o f

l i f e .

He

h a s

s u f f e r e d

and

w i l l

c o n t i n u e

t o s u f f e r e x t r e m e p a i n a n d d i s c o m f o r t .

A s

s t a t e d t h e p a i n i n h i s r i g h t k n e e

w i l l

undoubsedly

p r o g r e s s i v e l y

i n c r e a s e .

On

t h e

p r o b a b i l i t i e s

h i s

lower back pain

w i l l

a l s o i n c r e a s e a s

a

r e s u l t

of

h i s now

abnormal

ga

i

t

and

pos ture .

In

a d d i t i o n

h

e

h a s t h e g r o s s Q n s i g h t l y and

s c a r r i n g

t o h i s

b o d y w h i c h

i s

e x t r e m e Z y

embarrass ing

to

h im.

The

in jur ies

were

-

h o r r i b l e

and

f r i g h t e n i n g

and

such

scars

no

doubt

are

a

c o n s t a n t r e m i n d e r

t o

h im

o f

t h e a c c i d e n t

i t s e l f , t h e

agnosiizg

period

when

he

was

impaled

on t h e p o s t , d o e s n o t r e f e r

t h e t o a l l

l e n g t h y p e r i o d o f h o s p i t a l i s a t i o n

and

a l l t h e

a f t e r m a t h t h o s e e v e r y d a y p l e a s u r e s

o

f

t h e

o r d e a l .

The

Court

t h a t t h i s

v i r i l e ,

ou tgoing young

man

could have ,

b u t f o r

h i s a c c

i d e n t ,

l o o k e d

f o r w a r d

t o

and

which

have been

f o r e v e r

denied him.

I t was

a g r e e d t h a t t h e n e t t

t o s s

of

wages

f r o m

t h e d a t e o f

t h e a c c i d e n t

t o

t h e d a t e o f h e a r i n g

was $7,500 and t h a t

t h e o u t - o f - p o c k e t e x p e n s e s

f o r

hosp i ta7 . and med ica l

expenses

and

the

l i ke

to za l

$5,031.90.

Of

t h i s

l a t t e r

sum t h e

d e f e n d a n t

h a s

,

paid

the amount

of

$4,167.40

so

t h a t $ 8 6 4 . 5 0

i s

s t i l l

o u t s t a n d i n g .

The

proper

f i gure

to adequa te l y

compensaze

t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r h i s i n j u r i e s

and

h i s d i s a b i l i t i e s ,

t h e d i m i n u t i o n o f

h i s

e a r n i n g

c a p a c i t y ,

t h e

l o s s

o f

t h e e n j o y m e n t o f l i f e

and

f o r t h e p a i n

and

s u f f e r i n g

b o t h p a s t , p r e s e n t

and

f u t u r e

and

f o r

t h e g r o s s

d i s f i g u r i n g

aiid

e m b a r r a s s i n g s c a r r i n g t o h i s y o u n g

body

by

way

o f genera l

damages

i s ,

i n my

o p i n i o n ,

t h e sum

$150,000.

The

outs tanding

ecozomic

loss

t o t a l s

$ 8 , 3 6 4 . 5 0 . A c c o r d i n g l y

t h e r e

w i l l be

a

v e r d i c t f o r

t h e p l a i n t i f f

f o r

$158,364.50".

H i s Honour's approach

of awarding a g l o b a l amount as compensation

-1 1-

f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s i n j u r i e s a n d t h e i r c o n s e q u e n c e s w i t h o u t

any

e x p r e s s i n t e r n a l s u b d i v i s i o n o f t h a t

amount

may

accord

wi th the v iews expressed

by

Barmi ck

C. J. ,

i n Arthur Robinson

(Graf ton)

Pty.

Limited

v

.

Carter((1968)

122 C.L.R.

649 at

pp. 660-661) 385 a t p .

and

reaffirmed

i n Ruby v. Marsh

(.(1975)

6 A.L.R.

391)

.

Those

views

of

the

Chief

Justice

of

Australia

have not, however, been shared

by

o t h e r members

of

t h e High

Court (see Sharman

v.

Evans

(1977)

13 A.L .R .

57 a t pp.64-65

and p. a t pp.446-7

69;

D e s s e n t v.

The Commonwealth

(1977)

13

A.L.R.

437

I

and

Gamser

v. Nominal Defendant

(1977) 13

A . L . R .

387 a t pp. 389-90 and

p

.

391)

.

S

ince

the

dec is ion

of

the

High

Court

in

Griff i ths

v

.

Kerkemeyer

(1977)

15 A.L.R.

387)

which

was

n o t . r e p o r t e d u n t i l

a f t e r

h i s Honour

del ivered judgment

i n t h e p r e s e n t

matter,

it

s h o u l d b e a c c e p t e d t h a t t h e p r e f e r a b l e

approach fo r

a

Judge assessing damages in

a

case

such as

t h e

present is t o show the amount

which

he

a l l o c a t e s , t e n t a t i v e l y

o r f i n a l l y ,

t o each head of

damage.

I t

was

submi t ted ,

on

b e h a l f o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ,

t h a t

i t was t h e f i g u r e

r e a s o n a b l e

t o

assume, from his

Honour

'

s

judgment ,

th&t

3

,

c

of

$150,000.00

which he awarded

t o c o v e r

a l l

damages

o the r t han in r e spec t o f pas t economic

loss

inc luded

some

$90,000.00 on

account

of

damages

fo r d iminu t ion

of

ea rn ing

capaci ty and

some

$60,000.00

in r e spec t o f o the r heads o f

damage.

Careful

reading

of

h i s

Honour's

judgment

has

f a i l e d

t o convince

m e

t h a t t h i s

is n e c e s s a r i l y so.

H i s Honour

e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d t h a t h i s

use

o f a c t u a r i a l

tables

was

"as

a

guide

only"

and

remarked

t h a t

the

example which he

set

o u t

"works

h e a v i l y a g a i n s t

t h e p l a i n t i f f

for

t h e v i c i s s i t u d e s o f

-12-

l i f e " .

I t is, i n my

view,

impossible

t o see

as

i m p l i c i t

i n

his Honour 's

judgment

any conclusion

that

a

f igure of approx-

imately

$90,000.00 was

inc luded

i n t h e o v e r a l l

award of

$150,000.00

as

b e i n g a p p r o p r i a t e

i n r e spec t o f

damages

f o r

d iminut ion

of

earn ing

capac i ty .

I t

does,

however ,

appear

to

me

t h a t t h e i d e n t i f i e d

error

i n t h e r e f e r e n c e f i g u r e

was

c l e a r l y

r e f l e c t e d j n t h e o v e r a l l

award

of

damages

i n t h e

sense t h a t

I.

I c o n s i d e r t h a t , " i n excess of $74,000.00"

i f

h i s Honour

had

s u b s t i t u t e d t h e € i g u r e

f o r t h e

f igu re " in excess of $8S,000.00't

which he

s t a t e d h e a c c e p t e d

"as

a

g u i d e t o w h a t f i g u r e

is

r e a s o n a b l e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n " I n r e s p e c t o f

damages

f o r d m i n u t -

i on

of

e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y , t h e

amount

of

damages

i n r e s p e c t o f

I

tha t head of

damage

which

was

i n c l u d e d i n t h e o v e r a l l

amount

I

awarded would have been reduced

by

some

$14,000.00

a n d t h a t

t h e o v e r a l l	amount awarded would have been correspondingly
reduced.

A

ques t ion

which has caused

me

c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f l c u l t y

is whether

i t

is

s u f f i c i e n t l y a p p a r e n t

from

his Honour ' s

.

judgment

t h a t t h e

effect

of

t h e i d e x t i f i e d e r r o r i n

the

r e fe rence f igu re de r ived f rom

the

u s e o f a c t u a r i a l t a b l e s c a n

I

b e s u f f i c i e n t l y i s o l a t e d t o a v o i d v i t i a t i n g t h e w h o l e o f h i s

Honour's

award

of

damages

i f

t h e

amount

awarded , a f t e r co r rec t -

'

i o n o f

t h e e r r o r ,

is

no t o the rwise p rope r ly open

to a t t ack .

I

h a v e , w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e h e s i t a t i o n ,

come

t o

the conclus ion

t h a t it

can .

A

r educ t ion of

$14,000.00 i n

t h e o v e r a l l

amount

awarded

will,

i n my

v iew, co r rec t

t h e

e r r o r r e s u l t i n g f r o m

acceptance of

the f igure of approximately $130.00 per

week

and

t h e m i s t a k e i n t h e a c t u a r i a l c a l c u l a t i o n

i tself .

-13-

The

r e s u l t l n g amount

of

$144,364.50 o v e r a l l damages,

inc luding

damages

€or past economic

loss,

is

no t

less

than the

o v e r a l l amount

which,

i f

t h e matter were

a t l a r g e b e f o r e

us,

I

shou ld cons ide r appropr i a t e

i n a l l t h e

circumstances

of

t h i s case.

I t

s h o u l d n o t ,

i n

my

view,

be

disregarded

by

reason

of

its being unduly

low

o r o n t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e r e

is

an

element

of

u n f a l r n e s s t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t

1.n

reducing

the award

made by deduct ing the

amount of

$14,000.00 which

I

c o n s i d e r c a n p r o p e r l y b e a t t r i b u t e d t o

the

e r r o r i n t h e

I

reference

f i g u r e .

There

remalns

€or

c o n s i d e r a t i o n

t h e

q u e s t i o n

whether t h a t r e s u l t i n g amount

is,

i n any event ,

so unduly

hlgh

as

t o w a r r a n t

t h e

f u r t h e r

i n t e r v e n t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t .

H i s Honour ' s f l nd ings r e l evan t t o

damages

for

diminut ion

of

earning

capaci

ty

have

been

set

out

above.

Apart

from

t h e e r r o r s

i n

c a l c u l a t i o n

t o which reference has been

made,

they have not been

shown

t o b e , i n

any

r e s p e c t , e i t h e r

aga ins t

t he ev ldence

or

without adequate foundat ion in

the

evldence.

I see no

g rounds

fo r

d l s tu rb lng

them.

On

these

€ indings ,

the respondent

who

was,

as

a

resu l t

o f h i s i n j u r l e s ,

unemployed

a t

t h e time

of

the hea r ing wou ld , . bu t

for

those

in ju r i e s , have been ea rn lng approxmate ly

$120.00

p e r

week

n e t .

H i s p r o s p e c t s

of

employment

were,

as

a

r e s u l t

o f h i s

i n j u r i e s , grim.

I t was

accepted by counse l

fo r

t he

appe l l anx ,

i

i n t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s

case,

t h a t

employment

" invo lv ing phys ica l e f fo r t "

was

p r e c l u d e d e v e n i f a v a l l a b l e

and it was s u i t a b l e employm&nt l a y

suggested

that i n h l s r e s u m i n g

t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s

best

hope of obtalnlng

his	s t u d i e s i n an

e f f o r t t o

ob ta in

the Higher School

Cert l f icate .

A s

has

been

I.

I

-14-

s a i d , t h e l e a r n e d

trial

judge

was

e n t i t l e d t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e

respondent ' s chances of successfu l ly comple t ing the Higher

S c h o o l C e r t i f i c a t e

were

remote.

!

To

accept an earning

rate of

$120.00

p e r week

s u b j e c t

- only t o an increase of

55.00

t o $10.00 p e r week when he reached

t h e s t a t u s

of

a n "older

employee"

a t Canberra Grammar School ,

as

r e p r e s e n t i n g

a

f a i r a s ses smen t

of

t h e a s p i r a t i o n s w h i c h t h e

respondent could legi t imately have held

as

r e g a r d s f u t u r e

e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y

is t o accept

as

t h e measure

of

h i s f u t u r e

economic poten t ia l the pos i t ion which he had a l ready achieved

at t h e age of

seventeen.

Such

an

approach

is p la in ly ,

f rom

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t ' s

p o i n t

of

view,

an

unenthus ias t ic

one .

On

tha t approach and

on

t h e b a s i s

of

h i s H o n o u r ' s f i n d i n g s , t h e

f i g u r e o f

$92.00

p e r

week

n e t

was,

i f

t h e p r o b a b l e € u t u r e

e f f e c t s

of

i n f l a t i o n b e i g n o r e d ,

of

some

r e l e v a n c e t o t h e

assessment

of

damages

in respec t of d iminut ion of earn ing

I

capac i ty .

As has

been

seen ,

re fe rence

t o actuar ia l

tables

d i s c l o s e s t h a t

the amount

which,

i f i n v e s t e d

a t G%

p e r

annum,

would,

as

a

r e s u l t o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

of

b o t h c a p i t a l a n d

income, produce

$92.00 p e r week gross f o r 40 years is $74,336.00.

The

r e su l t de r ived f rom such

a n

a p p l i c a t i o n o f a c t u a r l a l

tables

has been accepted

as

r e l e v a n t i n

many

cases

o f t h e h i g h e s t

a u t h o r i t y .

I t has l i t t l e t o recommend

it

from

t h e p o i n t

of

view of

a

p l a i n t i f f

i n a

case

such

as t h e p r e s e n t .

The

i n g r e d i e n t

whvhlch

is

f e d i n t o t h e a c t u a r i a l t a b l e

is

a

n e t

( i . e . a f t e r

t a x )

week ly

f i gu re .

I f

t he

amount

which

r e s u l t s

from

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

of

t h e t a b l e s

were

a p p l i e d t o the purchase

of

a n

a n n u i t y f o r

40

years ,

the amounts received by

way

of

-15-

annuity

would

be a l l taxable.

If one treats the investment

as a r e t u r n is more than twice

n o t i o n a l o n e , t h e t a x a b l e i n t e r e s t

component

of

t h e u l t l m a t e

t h e c a p i t a l

component.

The ra te of

tax will

no t be

t h e rate a p p l i c a b l e i f the respondent

were

i n

r e c e i p t o f

no

o t h e r

income:

the

bas i s

under ly ing

the

exercise

is

t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t

will

be

I n rece ip t of o ther income.

I t

may

b e s a i d t h a t o n e s h o u l d n o t

assume

a g a i n s t

a

defendant

t h a t t h e

cur ren t

l e v e l o f

t a x a t i o n

will be

always with

u s .

But

t h a t

is prec ise ly what

1s

done aga ins t

a

p l a i n t i f f i n t a k i n g

t h e a f t e r - t a x f i g u r e

as

t h e b a s i s

OP

t h e

actuar ia l

c a l c u l a t l o n .

Again,

i t migh t be sa id tha t

a

ra te of

6%

p e r annum

is,

as

a g a i n s t a cond l t ipns wh ich ope ra t e aga ins t

defendant,

unduly

low. I n t he

absence

o f

i n f l a t iona ry

,

a

p l a l n t l f f a n d f o r w h i c h

t h e

I

actuarial

c a l c u l a t i o n

makes

n b p r o v i s i o n , t h a t

is

simply not

so.

H i s Honour made an

allowance

i n

t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s

f a v o u r

i

n

respec t of adverse cont ingencies such

as

s i c l m e s s , e a r l y

death and

a

measure of unen~ployment

by

r e d u c i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s

projected working

l i f e

f rom 45 yea r s

t o

40

y e a r s .

I n

my

new,

4

t h e f i g u r e

of

$74,336.00 cannot,

t o t h e e x t e n t t o

which

it

1s

r e l e v a n t t o t h e q u e s t i o n

of

t h e a p p r o p r i a t e

amount

t o be

awarded on account

of

diminut

ion

in

earning capaci

ty

,

properly

be regarded, respondent ' s po in t of

on

h i s H o n o u r ' s

f l n d i n g s ,

as

belng,

f rom

the

view,

a

generous one or

as

s t a t i n g t h e

I

upper

limit

of

t h e amount

of damages which could

reasonably

be

awarded

I n r e s p e c t

of

t h a t h e a d

of

damage

( s e e ,

as

t o the

relevance

o f t he inc idence

of

f u t u r e income

t ax

i n t h e

asses-

ment

of

damages

fo r d iminu t ion o f ea rn ing capac i ty , Shaman

v. Evans

(1977)

13 A . L . R .

57 a t pp.

7s

and

85-86

a n d n o t e ,

t o

the cont ra ry , Pe t ro leum

&

Chemical

Corporat ion

(Australia)

-16-

P t y . Limited v . Morris

(1973) 47 A . L . J . R .

484 a t pp.

485-6).

A t one stage i n t h e course of

h i s able submissions,

s en io r counse l

for

t h e appe l l an t sugges t ed

t h a t

an

award

of

$90,000.00 would

r e s u l t i n

t he

respondent ,

a t p r e s e n t

rates

df

i n t e re s t ,

hav

ing

an

income

of

some $9000.00 per year. I

do no t h i g h r a t e s o f i n t e r e s t

r ega rd

t ha t exercise as being helpful .

The c u r r e n t

are

i n p a r t

a

r e f l e c t i o n o f a n t i c i p a t e d

i n f l a t i o n .

I t would be

q u i t e wrong

t o take in to

accoun t

t h e

c u r r e n t rates

of

i n t e r e s t a n d

t o ignore

t he effects

o f i n f l a t -

i on which

is p a r t l y r e s p o n s i b l e

for them

(see Sharman

1 7 .

Evans,

supra ,

a t pp.

77-78).

Indeed,

i f

i n f l a t i o n

is

t a k e n

i n t o

account,

t h e ne t

i ncome , a f t e r

t axa t ion , on

the

sum

of

$90,000

inves t ed

a t 10% per

annum

is u n l i k e l y t o exceed

t h e diminution

i n t h e

rea l

va lue

of

t h e c a p i t a l i n v e s t e d .

H i s H o n o u r ' s f i n d i n g i n r e l a t i o n

t o

damages

o t h e r

t h a n f o r d i m i n u t i o n i n e a r n i n g

capacity

and

past

economic

l o s s are summarized i n t h e first paragraph of

the e x t r a c t

from h i s jvdgment which has been las t set out .

Those

f ind-

i ngs mere,

i n my view,

J u s t i f l e d by t h e evidence.

To

t h e

I

matters there ment ioned , i t is n e c e s s a r y t o add f u t u r e o u t - goings which t h e respondent will be called upon t o bea r as t h e r e s u l t o f the i n j u r i e s he s u s t a i n e d i n t h e acc iden t . Fo r

example,

i t is apparent t h a t ,

i n the y e a r s ahead,

h i s i n j u r i e s

will

lead

t o t h e

i n c u r r i n g o f

medical

a n d , p o s s i b l y , h o s p i t a l

expenses.

.

On

h i s Honour ' s f i nd ings ,

t h e respondent

was

e n t i t l e d

-17-

t o damages d u r i n g t h e o r d e a l o f t h e a c c i d e n t a n d

f o r t h e

s h a t t e r i n g p a l n a n d s u f f e r i n g

he

experlenced

its	immediate af termath,

f o r t h e p a i n , s u f f e r i n g a n d l o s s o f e n j o y m e n t o f

l i f e

he

exper ienced dur ing the ensuing

5

t o

6

mon ths ' hosp i t a l i za t ion ,

f o r

t h e p a i n , s u f f e r i n g , d i s a b l l i t y a n d i n c o n v e n i e n c e w h i c h

he

w i l l s u f f e r f o r t h e

rest

o f h i s l i f e , f o r t h e

los t

of

e n j o y m e n t o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h h e m o s t e n j o y e d i n h i s

you th and fo r t he

loss

or

dunlnution of enJoyment

of

those

ac t lv i t i e s

i n which

he

will,

~n

t h e f u t u r e , b e u n a b l e t o

p a r t i c i p a t e o r o n l y a b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e w i t h d i m i n i s h e d

e n J o y -

ment

or

a b i l i t y .

I n

t h e c o n t e x t

of

t h e p a i n ,

s u f f e r i n g

a n d

d i sab i l i t y wh ich has . r e su l t ed and

will

resu l t

f rom the r e sponden t ' s

'

I

i n j u r i e s ,

one

is perhaps prone

t o l o s e s l g h t of

what

h i s Honour

descr ibed

as

t h e " g r o s s s c a r r i n g t o h i s

body which

1s

extremely

uns ight ly

and

embarrass

lng

to

him".

The

respondent

is

e n - t i t l e d

t o compensation

i n respect

of

t h e eifect

o f t h a t s c a r r i n g

on

h is

en joyment

of

l i f e .

P l a i n l y ,

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

was

e n t i t l e d

t o very

substantial

damages

i n a d d i t i o n t o

damages

i n r e s p e c t

I

of

diminution

of

e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y .

Damages

f o r o u t s t a n d i n g p a s t e c o n o m i c l o s s

were

agreed i n t h e f l g u r e

of

$8364.50.

The

conclus ion to which

I

have

come

is t h a t t h e o v e r -

a l l

f igure of $144,364.50,

wh ich

r e s u l t s f r o m t h e a d j u s t m e n t

of

t h e amovnt

awarded by

h i s Honour

t o overcome t h e r e s u l t

o f t h e e r r o r s

of

mathemat ica l ca lcu la t ion to which re€erence

has been

made, cannot properly be seen

as

being

so

unduly hlgh

as

t o w a r r a n t

t h e

f u r t h e r

i n t e r f e r e n c e

of

th i s

Cour t .

Whether

-18-

;he matter be approached

on a g l c

rbal

bas :is or

by

a n a l y s i s o P

i nd iv idua l heads

of

damage,

I

d o n o t c o n s i d e r t h a t t h a t

overal l

fig:me

r e p r e s e n t s an e r roneous assessment

of

t h e damages

t o

r h i c h t h e r e s p o n d e n t

is

e n t i t l e d or

an

amount

d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e

t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s

i n j u r i e s .

In

t h e

result,

I

c o n s i d e r t h a t t h e a p p e a l s h o u l d b e

allowed and t h a t

t h e

v e r d i c t

i n favour

of

the

responderi t

should

,.

be

reduced

t o $144,364.50.

The o r d e r for c o s t s made by t h e

t r i a l

judge

should

n o t be

d i s tu rbed .

1 would o r d e r

t h a t

t h e

respondent pay one-half	of	t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s c o s t s	of	t h e
appezl .

I

l Dated : 7-

9 - 78

i

IN THE

FEDERAL

COURT OF

AUSTRALIA

1

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

>

)

No.

F.C.

1 7

o f

1 9 7 7

REGISTRY

i

ON APPEAL FROM

THE

SUPREME COURT OF

1'HE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERKlTORY

BETWEEN :

PAUL EDWARD ARMSTRONG

an

i n f a n t

by

h i s n e x t

f r i e n d

and

f a t h e r

DARCY ALLAN ARMSTRONG

P la in t i f f

(Respondent )

AND:

-

ANDREW

14ULLIAM RUDD

Defendant

(Appellant)

I

CORAM :

Brennan, Deane and McGregor JJ.

8

September

1 9 7 8

REASONS

FOR

JUDGMENT

McGREGOR

J :

PAUL

EDIVARD ARMSTRONG

( h e r e i n a f t e r

c a l l e d

" t h e

respondent")

sued

ANDREW

WILLIAM

RUDD

( h e r e i n a f t e r c a l l e d " t h e

appel lant"]

for damages

and

p e r s o n a l

i n j u r i e s

r e c e i v e d

i n

a

motor

vehicle

accident

which

took place

on

the

21st

J u l y 1 9 7 4

on the

Araluen

Road

n e a r B e l l ' s

Creek

i n New

South

Wales.

The

h e a r i n g i n t h e

Supreme

Cour t o f

the Aus t ra l ian Capi ta l Ter r i to ry

a t which

the

only

i ssue

was

t h e amount of damages t o be

awarded

t o

t h e p l a i n t i f f ,

was

on

the

23rd

May 1 9 7 7 ;

Judgment

being

given on the

28th

September

1 9 7 7

for

the

respondent

i n the sum

o f $158,364.50.

!

2

I n

t h i s a p p e a l

t h e a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s

t h a t

sum

was

unreasonably high and

seeks

a

new

t r i a l o r r e q u e s t s

t h a t t h e

amount

thereof be decreased

to

such

ex

ten

t

as

the

Court

thinks The respondent was born on t h e 9 t h

i s j u s t and

e q u i t a b l e .

November 195G

1

in Canberra,

and

was educated up t o and

including Third

Form

and

l e f t

s c h o o l

i n 1 9 7 3 .

He

worked

t h e r e a f t e r a s

a

roof

t i l e r f o r f o u r

months;

then

took

up

a

p o s i t i o n

as

a

t r a i n e e

green-keeper a t

the Canberra

Grammar

School which

job

he

r e t a i n e d

up

t o

t he

t ime

o

f

t he

acc iden t .

His

work

t h e r e

cons is ted of

mowing

l awns ,

l ook ing a f t e r p l an t s and gene ra l

green-keeping

duties.

Compcndiously

h i s work

was

dcscr ibed

as

"gardening and ground maintenance

more

t h a n j u s t c u t t i n g

g r a s s

f o r

g o l f

and

bowling

grcens".

This

work

he was

a b l e

t o do t o h i s employer.

with

i n t e r e s t

and apparent ly with complete sat isfact ion

Had he

chosen

to

do

s o ,

i t appears,

he

could

s t i l l have

remained

i n t h a t employment.

The

c i rcumstances of

the acc ident

were

q u i t e

h o r r i f y i n g .

The

respondent ,

a

f r o n t - s e a t

p a s s e n g e r

i n

a

motor vehicle

was

i n e f f e c t i m p a l e d

on

po r t ion o f

a

br idge

wi th

wh

ich

t he

veh ic l e

co l l i ded .

The rea f t e r

t he

veh ic l e

f e l l

down

i n t o

a

creek and the piece of

wood

with which he

was

impaled,

measuring

4 " X G"

became

imbedded

i n t h e c r e e k ,

s o

t h a t h e

was

p i n n e d

t h u s

t o

t h e

c r e e k b e d .

I n i t i a l l y h e

f e l t

no

pain but

then real

ised what

had happened and fel

t

severe

pa in

and undoub ted ly g rea t f ea r a s t o h i s p red icamen t .

Four and one-half hours elapsed before

h e

was

ab le

3

t o h e t a k e n from

the car,

still however w i t h the wood

through

his

body.

T h i s i s desc r lbed

In

some d e t a i l .

He

remembered

b e i n g

t a k e n

t o

t h e h o s p l t a l

and

apparently

t h e r e a f t e r

was

unconsc ious un t i l a f t e r

t he ope ra t ion wh ich

removed

t h e wood.

The

l ea rned

t r i a l judge has

found

tha t

i n

t h e

acc ident he suf fered

a

gross communition of

the

right

i l ium

and a separat ion

of

the

symphysis

pubis .

Further

,

dur ing

the ope ra t ion

it was

found

that

the

femoral

nerve

had

been

widely

divided

with

ragged contused ends,

the

compound

f r a c t u r e o f t h e r i g h t

i l i u m

was

ex tens ive

and he had

complete

d i s r u p t i o n o f t h e r i g h t s a c r o - i l i a c j o i n t .

The respondent

remained

i n t h e h o s p i t a l

f o r some

i i v e

months.

Unquestionably

the

period

spent

i n t h e

h o s p i t a l

would have been painful,

frustrating

and

worrying,

p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r	a	man	who	had	t o t h i s p o i n t l e d a n a c t i v e
l i f e .

The

d i s a b i l i t i e s from

which

t h e p l a i n t i f f s u f f e r s

as

described and accepted

by

t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l

j u d g e s h o u l d

b e

r e - s t a t e d

:

“As a p l a i n t i f f s u f f e r s p e r m a n e n t d i s a b i l i t i e s .

r e s u l t

o f t h e s e

i n j u r i e s

t h e

He

has

t o wear

a

r i g h t l e g c a l i p e r w i t h

a

t o e r a i s i n g d e v i c e

t o p r e v e n t f o o t d r o p .

There

i s

lo s s

o f

s e n s a t i o n

i n

t h e

t h i g h

and

lower

leg and he walks wlth

a

marked

limp. He cannot

run.

He

has

a t tempted

I

t o

d i s c a r d t h e c a l i p e r

from

time

to

t ime

but

has

found

tha t

the

knee

le t s

him

down

4

on

weight

bear ing.

He

has

su f f e red

and will p a i n i n h i s r i g h t

a lways suf fer cons iderable

l e g ,

t h e r i g h t

knee

and

h i p

j o i n t s ,

t h e p e l v i s

and

lower

back.

The med ica l

ev idence

i s

t ha t

t h e s e d i s a b i l i t i e s a r e p e r m a n e n t .

*

Fur the r i t i s more

probable

than

not

t h a t w i t h i n t e n t o f i f t e e n y e a r s

o s t e o - a r t h r i t i c c h a n g e s

i n h i s r i g h t

knee

j o i n t will

be such

tha t opera t ive

t rea tment

will

b e r e q u i r e d e i t h e r t o

r e p l a c e t h e ~ o i n t w i t h

an

a r t i f i c i a l

one

o r t o a r t h r o d e s e

t h e

J o i n t .

I n

a d d i t i o n h e h a s g r o s s l y d i s f i g u r i n g

s c a r s t o h i s

abdomen

and

lower

back

which cause

him considerable embarrassment".

I

have been unable

to

f ind

the evidence

upon

which

His

Honour

r e l i e s f o r t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e

respondent will

a lways

suf fe r

cons iderable

pa in .

Any

ar throdes ls of	the	knee	would	be	expec	ted	to save	him
pa in .

As

a

r e s u l t o f h i s c o n d i t i o n h e h a s l o s t

t h e

a b l l l t y t o cont inue

t o p l a y a s

a

League

foo tba l l e r

t hough

i t i s doubtful

whether ,

on

the und i spu ted

f ac t s ,

t he

ca ree r

wh ich the l ea rncd t r i a l

j udge p red ic t ed fo r

him

in

t h i s

s p o r t would

have ensued.

Undoubtedly he has been deprived of

s o

much

a s

was

open

t o him

a s a

f i t a c t i v e young man

doing an outdoor

l

I	. -
i
I

I

I'

r

3

job

and

i n t e r e s t e d

i n

v i g o r o u s

s p o r t .

N e v e r t h e l e s s

h e

was

a b l e , a f t e r

t h e a c c i d e n t ,

t o p l a y g o l f

f o r

some

time

each

week

f o r

a

p e r i o d o f f i v e

weeks

and

t h i s

sport he enjoyed

though

h i s d i s a b i l i t i e s

made

i t

d i f f i c u l t .

A p p a r e n t l y

he

gave

it

up only because

an

employment

which

he

then had

was

te rmina ted .

On

these occasions he did not

wear

his

cal

iper

but

would have

su€€ered some

d i scomf i tu re

a s

a

r e s u l t . I t

would

seem

t h a t

he may t ake

the

game up a g a i n

i n

f u t u r e .

He

may

be

handicapped

however

by

what

could

occur

in re la t lon to h is knee .

A

s l g n i f i c a n t component

i n t h i s v e r d i c t

i s f o r

economic

l o s s .

Therefore ,

i t

i s n e c e s s a r y

t o

n o t e

His

H o n o u r ' s

f i n d i n g s a s

t o d e s t r u c t i o n

o f

ea rn ing capac i ty .

I

Thus

t h e

l e a r n e d

t r i a l

j u d g e s a i d

:

I

" I t

i s

c l e a r

on

t h e e v i d e n c e

t h e p l a i n t i f f

I

i s an odd

l o t .

The

r e a l i s t i c p o s i t i o n

i s

t h a t i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y

t h e r e

i s

no

a v a i l a b l e e c o n o m i c o u t l e t f o r

!

t h c p l a i n t i f f

and

t h a t he

i s f o r p r a c t i c a l

p u r p o s e s

t o t a l l y

i n c a p a c i t a t e d .

Whether

t h i s p o s i t i o n will

change

i f

t he gene ra l

t r end

o f

t h e p r e s e n t

economic

r e c e s s i o n

i s

reversed

i n t h e t o a s s e s s

f u t u r e

i s doub t fu l .

The

Court

has

damages

a t

p r e s e n t

day va lues .

I t

i s

cons t r a ined

by

a u t h o r i t y n o t t o c o n s i d e r

f u t u r e

i n E l a t i o n

o r

d e p r e s s i o n .

I t

i s

r e a s o n a b l e t o

assume

t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f

would

bu t fo r h i s acc iden t have

worked

till

about

the

age

of

65 yea r s .

He

1 s present ly

aged

20

s o

G

t h a t

t h c C o u r t

i n

my

opinion should

considcr

the diminut

ion of

earning

c a p a c i t y

f o r

up

t o

4 5 years.

Using

a c t u a r i a l

t a b l e s a s

a

guide

only

one

s e e s

t h a t , a f t e r h e a v i l y d i s c o u n t i n g

h

is

present

weekly

ne

t

earn

ings

f

rom

$130

t o $ 1 0 0 allowing

a

per iod of

30

y e a r s

i n s t e a d

o f

the probable

45 y e a r s ,

t h e c a p l t a l

sum

requ i r ed

to

be

inves t ed

a t 6 % so

a s

t o r e t u r n t o

t h e p l a i n t i f f

a sum of $ 1 0 0 p.w.

would t o t a l i n excess

of

$ S S , O O O .

This

example,

i n my

opin ion ,

works

h e a v i l y a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r

t h e v l c i s s i t u d e s o f l i f e b u t

i s

a

guide

t o what

f i g u r e

i s r easonab le

fo r

cons idera t ion under

th i s head" .

However,

even

s i n c e t h e a c c i d e n t

t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s h a d

employment.

He worked wi th his bro ther - in- law Mr. Bray

t

(his

g o l f i n g p a r t n e r ) a s

a

l a b o u r e r f i r s t o f a l l f o r

a

I

day or two p e r week and

then

ful l t ime.

He

desc r ibes

t h i s

work

as appa ren t ly c l ean ing ou t

t r enches a f t e r

a

mechanical

digger

had

made them.

One of

the

d i f f i c u l t i e s

i n

t h i s 'work

was

i n c a r r y i n g a r t i c l e s .

He

had a t o go t o work.

few days off because he experienced

too

much

pa in

Overa l l

he

r ema ined

i n

t h l s

employment

.

€ o r

1 2 months

and

gave

it

up

because apparent ly h is

employer wanted

him

every morning and he could not

"make

it"

every

morning.

A

fur ther

job

which

he

could

have

had,

as

I

7

I I

u n d e r s t a n d

i t ,

a f t e r

t h e

l a b o u r i n g

l o b

was

w i t h

a

c l e a n i n g

i

c o n t r a c t o r .

Ile

f a i l e d

g e t

t o

h a t

j o b

b e c a u s e

d i d

h e

n o t

I	have	a	d r i v e r ' s	l i c e n c e .	He	can	however	d r ive	a	motor
I

v e h i c l e a n d s t a t e d

i n

e v i d e n c e

t h a t h e c o u l d g e t

a

l i c e n c e

I

a t any

time;

( t h o u g h

h

e

d o e s

n o t

p a r t i c u l a r $ y

l i k e

d r i v i n g )

he

would

do

s o

ii

h e h a d

t o d r i v e

t o e a r n

a

l i v i n g .

A

f u r t h e r

j o b w h i c h h e c a r r i c d o u t

f o r

a

p e r i o d o f

a p p r o x i m a t e l y

f o u r w e e k s

was

as

a

l a b o u r e r w i t h

a

Company

c a l l e d

E g l i t l s

C o n s t r u c t i o n s .

He

d e s c r i b e s

h i s

e x p e r i e n c e

t h e r e

a s

f o l l o w s

:

Q.

And

w h a t w e r e y o u r p a r t i c u l a r d u t i e s ?

A .

J u s t

t o h e l p

t h e b u i l d e r s

i t s e l f

and

b u i l d s c a f f o l d i n g f o r

t h e b r i c k l a y e r s .

Q -

How

d i d y o u g e t o n d o l n g

t h a t ?

A .

I was

all r i g h t

d o i n g

t h e

-

working

w i t h

t h e b u i l d e r s

-

b u t

t h e

s c a f f o l d i n g

was

t o o

h a r d

........ ........ ........ ........ .......

!

Q.

J u s t b e i n g

a

s o r t o f

handyman

a s s i s t a n t ,

were

you?

A .

T h a t ' s

r i g h t .

Q.

1Yhat

was

t h e p r o b l e m a b o u t

t h e

s c a f f o l d i n g ?

A .

I t was

t o o h a r d

to

c l imb

I

c o u l d n o t

c l i m b

it

p r o p e r l y w i t h

my

l e g .

........ ........ ........ ........ ........

Q.	Was	i t t u b u l a r	s c a f f o l d i n g ?
A .	Yes.

Q.

And

you

were

j u s t a s s e m b l i n g i t ?

A .

Yes,

I

was

o n l y j u s t

a s s e m b l i n g

t h i s .

........ ........ ........ ........ ........ .

8

MR.

COLLINS:

IIow d l d

y o u

come

t o

f i n i s h up

o n

t h a t

j o b ?

A .

The

boss w a s n ' t s a t i s f a c t o r y u t h t h e w o r k ;

t a l k e d

t o

me a n d

s a i d

I

tha t he s c a f f o l d i n g

wanted

someone

vho

could

do

a

l o t f a s t e r t h a n

'I

c o u l d

do i t .

Then

he

s tood

me

down.

Q .

Wel l ,

what

was

ho ld ing

you

up

so

f a r

as s p e e d was	conce rned on	t h e
s c a f f o l d l n g ?

A .

Oh,

c l i m b i n g

t h e

s c a f f o l d i n g

was

h a r d .

I h a d t o l e g a n d

USC

e v e r y t h m g e x c e p t

my

r i g h t

I

was

d r a g g l n g m y s e l f w i t h

my

hands

main

ly

.

I t

i s

t o b e n o t e d

t h a t a p p a r e n t l y o n l y

a

p a r t i c u l a r

a s p e c t o f t h i s l o b was

beyond h ~ m

a n d

t h a t b e c a u s e o t h e r s

c o u l d

do

i t

f a s t e r

t h a n h e .

Subscquen t ly

he

was

employed

f o r

t h r e e n i g h t s

as

an

a c t i n g b a r m a n

a t

$ 1 5

p e r n i g h t .

He

d e s c r i b e s

t h i s

o c c u p a t i o n

t h u s

:

Q .

How

d i d

y o u

g e t

on

w l t h

t h a t ?

A .

A

b i t b i t s o r e w a l k i n g

t l r i n g

w i t h

my

l e g .

I t was

a

up

and

down

t o

t h e

b a r a l l t h e

time.

Floreover

it

h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d

t h a t h e m i g h t

resume

h i s s c h o o l i n g

i n

r e s p e c t o f w h i c h

t h e

f o l l o w i n g e v i d e n c e

was

adduced

f rom

Dr. Farnbach :

Q .

We

u n d e r s t a n d ,

D o c t o r ,

t h a t

t h e

c l a i m a n t

i s now

2 0 ?

A .

Yes.

I

9

Q.

And

t h a t h i s e d u c a t i o n - w i s e a t s c h o o l

-

h e d i d n ' t g e t

up

t o w h a t

i n

my

day

u s e d t o b e c e r t i f l c a t e , d o e s

c a l l e d

t h e

i n t e r m e d i a t e

t h a t

r i n g

a

b e l l

w i t h y o u r d a y ?

A .

Yes.

I t h i n k

h e

w e n t

t o

t h i r d

i o r m

i n

h i g h

s c h o o l .

Q.

B u t

t h e r e

i s

n o t h i n g u n u s u a l a b o u t h i s

m e n t a l

c a p a c i t y ,

i s

t h e r e ?

A .

N o t

t h a t

I ' v e

n o t i c e d ,

n o .

Q.

And

t h e r e w o u l d b e n o r e a s o n s

why

he

s h o u l d n ' t b e r e - t r a i n e d

I n

s u c h

d i r e c t i o n s a s

l i t e r a l l y

o r

m e t a p h o r i c a l l y

g o i n g b a c k

t o

s c h o o l

t o g e t

some

f u r t h e r

s c h o o l

c e r t i f i c a t e s ,

c u l m i n a t l n g w i t h

t h e h i g h e r s c h o o l c e r t i i i c a t e ?

A .

I

w o u l d a c t i o n w o u l d b e

t h i n k

t h a t

t h e o n l y c o u r s e

of

t o

go

b a c k

t o

some s o r t

o i f o r m a l

s c h o o l

s i t u a t i o n a n d

as

you

s u g g e s t ,

g e t

a

s c h o o l c e r t i f i c a t e o r

h i g h e r s c h o o l c e r t i f i c a t e .

Q.

I n d e e d

i n

t h i s c o m m u n i t y a r e

t h e r e n o t

classes

f o r

t h i s k i n d o f e d u c a t i o n

f o r

a d u l t s ,

r u n b y v a r i o u s o f f - s h o o t s

o f

t h e

Commonwealth

government?

........ ........ ........ ........ ........

Q.	A d u l t	e d u c a t i o n	c l a s s e s	a n d	t h i n g s	l i k e
t h a t ?

A .

T h e r c ' s

a d u l t

e d u c a t i o n

c l a s s e s

f o r

h i g h e r

s c h o o l

c e r t i f i c a t e

a t

t h e t e c h n i c a l

c o l l e g e h e r e .

c

10

And

y o u

c a n g o

t o

t h c

t e c h n i c a l

Q.

c o l l e g e

a n d

s a y ,

I

w a n t

t o

m a t r l c u l a t e ,

wlll

y o u p l e a s e

t a k e

me	i n a n d	h e l p	me	a n d g e t	nie	a l o n g
t h e	r o a d ?

A .

T h a t ' s

r i g h t .

Q.

And

t h a t

1 s a v a i l a b l e c u r r e n t l y

a t

t h e

t e c h n i c a l

c o l l e g e

h e r e ?

A .

Yes .

Q.

And

t h e r e ' s p e o p l e a v a i l i n g

t h e m s e l v e s

o f t h i s

nlethod

o f

r e - t r a i n i n g ?

A .

Yes.

Q.

H a v i n g r e g a r d

t o h i s p h y s i c a l

i n j u r i e s ,

1 s

t h i s n o t

w h a t

h

e

o u g h t

t o

d o ?

A .

I would

do

i t i f

I

was

i n h i s s i t u a t i o n .

Q.

He would b e

d o i n g

i t

If,

l o o k i n g a t

h i m s e l f

i n w a r d l y ,

a s

i t were,

he was

s e n s i b l e ?

A .

Yes,

I

t h i n k

h e

........ ........ .......

HIS HONOUR:

When

y o u

s a y

o u g h t

t o

d o ,

Mr.

N o r r l s ,

y o u

mean

o u g h t

t o a t t e m p t

i t 7

MR. NORRIS:

Ought t o

a t t e m p t

i t , yes?

A .

I

t h i n k f o r him.

i t ' s t h e

m

o

s

s e n s i b l e

t

c o u r s e

Q .

And

t h e r e ' s

n o t h l n g

t h a t

y o u ' v e

seen

a b o u t

t h e

man

t o s u g g e s t

t o y o u

t h a t

l i k e

hundreds

o f

t h o u s a n d s

of

o t h e r

l i t t l e

A u s t r a l i a n s , h e w o u l d n ' t

b e

a b l e

t o g e t

t h rough

t hese

exams

i f

h e a p p l i e d h i s

mind

t o

i t

-

m i n d a n d d i l i g e n c e ?

I

A .

He

w o u l d

h a v e

t h e

q u a l

c h a n c e ,

I

would

imagine .

Q .

T h a t

e v e r y b o d y

h a s ?

A .

Yes.

F u r t h e r

r e f e r e n c e

t o

e x a m i n a t i o n

i s

made

a t

page

52

b u t d o e s n o t

a p p e a r

t o d e t r a c t

f r o m

t h e e v i d e n c e

p r e v l o u s l y g l v e n b y

t h i s w i t n e s s ,

who

h a d

t h e p a r t i c u l a r

q u a l l f i c a t l o n o f s p e c l a l i s i n g

i n r e h a b i l l t a t i o n a n d w a s

t h e O f f i c e r - i n - C h a r g e o f	t h a t	s e r v i c e a t	t h e	IVoden	V a l l e y
H o s p i t a l .

T h e r e w a s

r e f e r e n c e

t o

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t ' s w o r k

e x p e r i e n c e s

i n

t h e

m e d i c a l

r e p o r t s

t e n d e r e d .

I n

t h a t

o f

Dr.

M c G o n i g a l

o

f

t h e

9

t

h

A u g u s t

1 9 7 6

he

w r o t e

a

s

f o l l o w s

:

"Mr.

A r m s t r o n g

a t t e n d e d

o

n

2 8 t h

J u n e ,

1 9 7 6

o n

t h e a d v l c e o f h i s

s o l i c i t o r s .

On this a p p o i n t e l e n t

o c c a s i o n h e a r r l v e d

l a t e

f o r h i s

a n d

r e p o r t e d

.

1.

R i g h t

h i p

a n d

k n e e

w e r e

s t i f f

s i n c e

s e e n

by

me

t w o w e e k s

e a r l l e r .

2 .

He

h a d

p a l n

i n

t h e s e

~ o i n t s

on

w a l k i n g .

3 .

He

c a u g h t

c o l d s

a n d

" f l u "

a l l

t h e

t i m e .

4 .

lie

h a d

b e e n

p u t

o f f

w

o

r

k

b e c a u s e

h e

h a d

b e e n g e t t i n g

up

l a t e

a n d

r u n n i n g

l a t e

a t

work. He had

some

days

o f f

work

because

h i s

l i m b w a s p a i n f u l

a n d h e h a d h a d

t h e

" f l u " . .

He

h a d p r e v i o u s l y w o r k e d r e g u l a r l y

w i t h o n l y a

l i t t l e time

o f f

b e c a u s e

o f

b a c k p a i n € o r w h i c h h e h a d b e e n

t r e a t e d b y

Dr.

P e t e r

G r a n t .

He

w a s

n o t

s u r e

w h e n

t h e

l a t t e r h a d b e e n .

1 2

He

continued h i s work a s a casua l

barman

b u t h a d n o t p l a y e d g o l i b e c a u s e	o f	l e g
s t i f f n e s s " .

The

d o c t o r ' s o p i n i o n w a s , h a v i n g

r e f e r r e d

t o

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t ' s

m e d i c a l

c o n d i t i o n s ,

a s

f o l l o w s

:

"Desp l t e

t

hese

he

had

con t inued work ,

d r i v i n g

a

t r e n c h d i g g e r

f o r o v e r

a

y e a r ,

a d d i t i o n a l p a r t

t i m e w o r k a n d m o d e r a t e

s p o r t i n g a c t i v i t y , u n t i l a s

r e c e n t l y

as

J u n e ,

1 9 7 6 .

IVhen

s e e n

two

weeks

l a t e r no

c h a n g e

i n h i s c o n d i t i o n

was

o b s e r v e d

s u c h

a s m i g h t a l t e r h i s a b i l i t y	t o c o n t i n u e	t h e s e
a c t i v i t i e s " .

Dr.

F a r n b a c h ,

I n

h l s

r c p o r t

o

f

t h e

1 3 t h

May

1 9 7 7 ,

w r o t e

t h u s

:

"I

also

d i s c u s s e d w i t h

Mr.

A r m s t r o n g

t h e

t y p e

o f

employment

he

would

be

undertaking

i n

t h e

f u t u r e .

You

will

b e

a w a r e

t h a t

a t p r e s e n t

a n d o v e r

t h e

l a s t

e i g h t e e n m o n t h s h e h a s h a d

a number m a n a g e d

o f

l i g h t

l a b o u r i n g

j o b s w h i c h h e h a s

q u i t e

well .

He

i n d i c a t e d

t o

me

t h a t

he hoped p i c k i n g

t o b e a b l e

t o

t r a v e l a r o u n d A u s t r a l i a

up

work

wherever

I t was

a v a i l a b l e .

He

a l s o i n d i c a t e d t o

me

t h a t h e r e a l i s e d t h i s

wou

ld

no

t

be

good

f rom

the po in t o f v i ew

o f

h i s

k n e e b u t

h e

f e l t i t was

m o r e

i m p o r t a n t

t o

move

a r o u n d A u s t r a l i a a n d

see

t h i n g s h e h a d a l w a y s

I

w a n t c d

t o

s e e w h i l e h e w a s

s t i l l

mobile

enough

I

1 3

I

t o do t h i s .

He

i s aware

t ha t

u l t ima te ly

he will have

to undertake

a

sedentary

!

job bu t

he

wishes

to

cope

w i t h

t h i s

problcm when the

tune

comes

r a t h e r

t h a n

now. I therefoTe

d

id

no t

p ress

him

t o

i

undertake

any

lengthy vocat ional assessment

h e r e a t p r e s e n t a l t h o u g h

I

d i d o f f e r

t o s e e

him whenever

he

f e l t he

would

l i k e us

t o

he lp

him".

In t h e l i g h t

o f

a l l this

evidence

and

remembering

t ha t

t he

l ea rned

t r i a l

j udge a s ses sed

the

r e sponden t a s

a

person of

"courage,

s

toicism and

tenaci ty" ,

i t

does

seem

t h a t

i t was

no t

a

reasonable conclus ion

tha t

the

respondent

was,

f o r

p r a c t i c a l

p u r p o s e s ,

t o t a l l y

i n c a p a c i t a t e d .

If

t h e

respondent has been awarded

a

sum

f o r d e s t r u c t i o n o f e a r n i n g

capac i ty

on

t h a t b a s i s ,

i t

f o l l o w s t h a t t h i s p a r t o f t h e

award

has

been I t seems

overstated.

a l s o t h a t a s

a

pre l iminary

to

equipping

h i m s e l f

t o b u i l d i n t o t h e v e r d i c t

a

sum

f o r t h i s

l o s s

o f

ea rn ing capac i ty

the

l ea rned

t r i a l

j udgc en te r t a ined

the

new tha

t

t he "p resen t week ly ne t t ea rn ings" o f

t he r e sponden t

were

$ 1 3 0 .

F o r the

reasons

which

have

been

advanced

in

argument

and

having

regard

t o the evidence

of Mr.

Brackenridge

and Mr.

F a r d e l l

i t would

seem

t h a t t h e t r i a l

j u d g e h a s a c t e d

on

a

gcnerous viev

o r ca l cu la t ion o f

t he r e sponden t ' s ea rn ing

p o t e n t i a l

and even

then perhaps overstated

i t .

The

ca lcu la t ion could be as

fol lows

:

!

c

l

14

:

!

Wage

Tax

$135.00

$ 2 7 . 0 0

Han

Leading

5 . 80

Tax

1 . 0 0

Overt lme

$ 1 4 0 . 0 0

pw

2 . 6 0

!

52

Old

employee f o o t b a l l e r

o r

(pw)

7 .50

-

(approximate

average)

$150.90

- Tax $ 2 8 . 0 0

=

$122.90

T h i s c a l c u l a t i o n ,

i f

i t were

what

gave

His

Honour

t h e f i g u r e o f and i t assumes

$ 1 2 2

d i d n o t a l l o w

f o r

t ax

o n

t h e

l a s t

$ 1 0 . 1 0 ;

the

work week

by

week

i s

n o t

i n t e r r u p t e d b y

a b s e n c e

f o r

a n y

r e a s o n

-

even

f o r f o o t b a l l

i n j u r y .

To

i n c r e a s e

$ 1 2 2

t o $ 1 3 0

b

y

t h e

a d d i t i o n

o

f

a v e r a g e

p a y m e n t s

f o r

f o o t b a l l

e a r n i n g s ,

t h e

f i n d i n g

m u s t

f i r s t

t r a n s l a t e

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

t o

f i r s t - g r a d e

( w h e r e

h

c

s t a y s )

a n d

t h e n a d o p t a s

r e a s o n a b l e

t h a t h e p l a y s 1 8 m a t c h e s

per

s e a s o n

( i . e .

4 more

games

a f t e r t h e

i n i t i a l two

rounds ) . .at .an

a v e r a g e

o f

$26 p e r

game.

Such

a

s i t u a t i o n

i s p o s s i b l e

b u t

o n e

f e e l s

t h a t

i t errs o n

t h e

h i g h

s i d e .

I t

i s

f a i r t o n o t e

a f t e r

!

f o o t b a l l

d a y s

w e r e

o v e r ,

t h e

" o l d

e m p l o y e e "

p a y m e n t s

c o u l d

b e

a v a i l a b l e .

An

a n a l y s i s now

o f

t h e c o m p o n e n t s o f

t h e v e r d i c t

w111

e n a b l e o n e

t h e b e t t e r

t o u n d e r s t a n d

t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s

advanced

by

t h e a p p e l l a n t .

The

sum

a w a r d e d

a p p e a r s

t o

b e

made

up

a s

f o l l o w s

:

O u t - o f - p o c k e t

e x p e n s e s

$ 5 , 0 3 1 . 9 0

Pa id

4 ,167 .40

864.50

due

Balance

Loss

o f

w a g e s

( a c c i d e n t

t o

h e a r i n g )

7 , 5 0 0 . 0 0

P a i n

s u f f e r i n g !

d i m i n u t i o n

o

f

1 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0

c a p a c i t y

e a r n i n g

$158,364.50

.

1 5

I t

is

t o b e n o t e d

t h a t

t h e v e r d i c t , h a v i n g

r e g a r d

t o w h a t a l r e a d y

i s

p a i d

i s

e q u i v a l e n t

t o $ 1 6 2 , 5 3 1 . 9 0 .

I t i s

desirable

t o a t t e m p t

some

f u r t h e r d i s s e c t i o n .

The sum o f

$150 ,000 .00

i s

made

up

l a r g e l y o f a n a m o u n t

f o r

t h e

d e s t r u c t i o n

o

f

e a r n l n g

c a p a c i t y ;

a n d

f r o m

w h a t

w

a

s

s a i d

by Ilis Honour ( a t

p . 1 1 1 )

i t would

appear

he

may

have

a

l

lowed

a b o u t

$ 9 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0

f o r

t h i s ,

l e a v i n g

a p p r o x i m a t e l y

$ 6 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0

f o r p a i n

e t c .

a n d

d i s f i g u r e m e n t .

I n v e s t e d

a t

1 0 % -

t o

t h e e x t e n t

t h a t

t h i s c o u l d b e

a

p e r m i s s i b l e

o r u s e f u l m e t h o d

o f

check ing

(see

Sharman

v

Evans

1 3 A . L . R .

5 7

a t

77)

-

$ 9 0 , 0 0 0

would

p rovide

a

g r o s s

i n c o m e

o

f

s o m e t h i n g

i n

e x c e s s

o f

$ 1 7 0

p . w .

-

w i t h

c a p i t a l

i n t a c t .

The

r e s p o n d e n t

d o e s

n o t

n e e d

t o

p r o v i d e ,

o

n

t h e

e v i d e n c e ,

f o r

r e c u r r e n t p e r i o d i c m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s ,

s o

h e

may

b e a b l e t o

s e e k

a

h i g h e r r e t u r n o n

a

sum

f o r w h i c h

i n t e r e s t

i s

p a y a b l e

q u a r t e r l y .

Moreover

i t

d o e s a p p e a r

t h a t

His

Honour may have

been mis l ed by

a

d o c u m e n t

s a i d

t o h a v e b e e n

i n

c u r r e n t u s a g e

which

s e t s

o u t c e r t a i n s o - c a l l e d a c t u a r i a l c a l c u l a t i o n s ,

i n c l u d i n g

t h a t

o f

t h e c a p i t a l

sum

r e q u i r e d

t o p r o d u c e

$ 1 0 0

p e r week

f o r 40

y e a r s

w i t h

a

n

i n v e s t m e n t

r a t e

o f

6 % .

We

a r e

t o l d

t h a t

h i s

d o c u m e n t

s h o w s

a g a i n s t

h i s

r e c k o n i n g

a sum of

:

$ 8 8 , 0 0 0 ,

w h e r e a s

t h e

c o r r e c t

f i g u r e

i s

$80,804

( 3 0

A . L . J .

243);

I

and His Honour's	comment	a t p.111	seems	t o b e b a s e d o n s u c h	a
document.

I'!ith

t h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s

i n mind

it

i s n e c e s s a r y

t o

remember

t h a t

I t

i s u n d e s i r a b l e

f o r a n

a p p e l l a t e C o u r t

t o h a v e

t o u n d e r t a k e

t o d l f f e r

f r o m f i n d i n g s

of'

f ac t s

o f

a

j u d g e a t

f i r s t

i n s t a n c e

who

h a d t h a t w e l l

known

a d v a n t a g e o f

s e e i n g a n d

e v a l u a t i n g

t h e

w i t n e s s e s

a n d

t h e i r

e v i d e n c e .

H o w e v e r

o n c e

t h e

f a c t s

were

e s t a b l i s h e d

f r o m

w h i c h

t h e

j u d g e

h a s

d r a w n

a

n

i n fe rence

t h e n p e r h a p s a n a p p e l l a t e C o u r t

may

b e v e r y

n e a r l y

i n

a s g o o d

a

p o s i t i o n

as

he

was

t o u n d e r t a k e

t h e

p r o c e s s

o f

e v a l u a t i o n .

S e e

Da

Cos ta v

Cockburn

Salvage

6

T r a d i n g

P t y .

L t d .

( 1 9 7 0 )

1 2 4

C . L . R .

1 9 2 ,

wpere

a u t h o r i t i e s

a r e

c o l l e c t e d .

I n

t h i s A p p e a l

t h e C o u r t h a s n o t b e e n a s k e d

t o

o v e r t u r n a n y

f i n d i n g s o f

f a c t

made

b y

t h e

l e a r n e d

t r i a l

judge

and

one

p roceeds

upon

t h e b a s i s t h a t h i s f i n d i n g s

aTe

accep ted ;

t hough

wha t

His

H o n o u r

d e c i d e d

f r o m

t h o s e

f a c t s

i s

n o t w i t h r e s p e c t

s o

e a s y o f a c c e p t a n c e .

The

f i r s t

comment

a t t r a c t e d b y

t h e

s i z e

o f

t h e

v e r d i c t

i s

t h a t i t

1 s w i t h i n

a

r a n g e

of

awards

which

are

u s u a l l y

f o u n d a s h a v i n g b e e n

made

f o r

t h e p a r a p l e g i c a n d

y c t

t h c

r e s p o n d e n t

i s

i m m e a s u r a b l y b e t t e r o f f

t h a n

s u c h

a

p e r s o n .

The

sum

o f

$ 6 0 , 0 0 0 ,

i f

t h a t

w e r e

t h e

a p p r o x i m a t e

a l l o w a n c e

f o r p a i n a n d s u f f e r i n g e t c .

r e p r e s e n t s

a

f i g u r e

un reasonab ly	beyond	wha t ,	i n	my	v iew,	shou ld	have	been
a v a i l a b l e .

F u r t h e r

i t

w o u l d a p p e a r

t h a t

i n d e c i d i n g

t h a t

" f o r p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s "

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

was

t o t a l l y

I

i n c a p a c i t a t e d ,

t h e r e h a s b e e n d i s r e g a r d e d

t h e u n c o n t r a d i c t e d

e v i d e n c e

i n

t h e

case

a s t o h i s

w o r k h i s t o r y a n d h i s p o t e n t i a l

f o r

s e l f

i m p r o v e m e n t .

I f

t h e

sum

o f

a b o u t

$ 9 0 , 0 0 0

was

awarded

f o r

r e d u c t i o n

oi e a r n i n g

c a p a c i t y

-

as

s o a p p e a r s

-

it i s a l s o

i n

my

v i e w a n u n r e a s o n a b l e o v e r p r o v i s i o n .

I t

i s

n o t

i n t e n d e d t o p o s i t i v e l y a s s e r t h e r e

t h a t

a

s p e c l f i c

sum

c a n b e p o s l t i v e l y d e t e r m i n e d a s h a v i n g b e e n

t h e

amount

awarded

by

the

l earned

t r i a l

j u d g e

f o r

a

p a r t i c u l a r h e a d

I

_ _ I

I

17

of

damage.

But

so

f a r as

one

can

glean

what

was

awarded

f o r

t h e

two

h e a d i n g s

l a s t l y

m e n t i o n e d ,

t h e

a m o u n t s

m e n t i o n e d ,

i n

my

v i e w c o n s t i t u t e e r r o n e o u s e s t i m a t e s

f o r

t h o s e h e a d i n g s ;

a n d

t h e v e r d i c t m u s t a l s o b e

s o

d e s c r i b e d a n d m u s t b e

s e t

a s i d e .

I t

1 s n e c e s s a r y

now

t o d e c i d e w h a t '

i s the

p r o p e r

amount

t o

h

e

a w a r d e d

t o

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t .

I n

a r r i v i n g

a t

t h a t

f i g u r e

I

am

n o t

as

p e s s i m i s t i c

a b o u t

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t ' s

e a r n i n g

c a p a c i t y

as was

t h e

t r i a l

J u d g e ;

n o r

w o u l d

I

h a v e

r e g a r d e d

h i s p o t e n t i a l e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y

as

o p t l m i s t i c a l l y

as

h e

d i d .

I

h a v e

h a d

t h e

a d v a n t a g e

o

f

r e a d i n g

t h e

j u d g m e n t

o f

t h e

l e a r n e d

p r e s i d i n g

j u d g e .

T h o u g h

I

d o

n

o

t

a g r e e

exac t ly

w i t h t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o r

a m o u n t s

h

e i m p a i r m e n t o f e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y a n d p a i n ,

w o u l d

p r o p o s e

f o r

t h e

h e a d i n g s

o

f

s u f f e r i n g a n d

l o s s

o f

a m e n i t i e s

of

l i f e ,

my

own

f i g u r e s a n d

what

I

r e g a r d

as

a n a p p r o p r i a t e v e r d i c t d o n o t d i f f e r

so

markedly

t ha t

I

wlsh

t o d i f f e r

f r o m h i s a s s e s s m e n t .

A c c o r d l n g l y ,

I

a g r e e w i t h

t h e

t o t a l

sum

a t which

h e

a r r l v e s

a n d

t h e o r d e r

h e p r o p o s e s .

I

c e r t l f y that

thls and t h e

prcracxag p q e s are a t r u e copy o f the

Rea;

. IS

f o r Judzment herem of h l s Honour

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Armstrong, Paul Edward (an infant by his next friend and father Armstrong, Darcy Allan) v Rudd, Andrew William [1978] FCA 78

Most Recent Citation

Blackwell, C.G. v. Commonwealth of Australia [1986] FCA 315

Cases Citing This Decision

1

Blackwell, C.G. v Commonwealth of Australia [1986] FCA 315

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0

[1978] FCA 78

8 Sep 1978