Attorney-General v Bax - [1998] QCA 222

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 222
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 10560 of 1997

Brisbane

[Mansini v. Martin]

BETWEEN:

PETER MANSINI

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:

WAYNE MICHAEL MARTIN

(Plaintiff) Respondent
de Jersey CJ
McPherson JA
Chesterman J

Judgment delivered 7 August 1998

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; all concurring as to the orders made.

APPEAL ALLOWED WITH COSTS. JUDGMENT BELOW SET ASIDE AND IN LIEU THEREOF JUDGMENT ENTERED FOR THE RESPONDENT FOR $427,056.00 AND COSTS.

CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE - personal injuries - award of damages - whether trial judge’s assessment of past and future economic loss was excessive - value ascribed to lost chance of squash playing and coaching career to be assessed generally rather than by precise mathematical calculation
Counsel:	Mr J Griffin QC, with him Mr G O’Grady for the appellant Mr S Williams QC, with him Mr W Hodges for the respondent
Solicitors:	Heiser Bayly & Mortensen for the appellant James Byrne & Rudz for the respondent
Hearing Date:	12 June 1998

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 10560 of 1997

Brisbane

Before

de Jersey CJ
McPherson JA
Chesterman J

[Mansini v. Martin]

BETWEEN:

PETER MANSINI

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:

WAYNE MICHAEL MARTIN

(Plaintiff) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - de JERSEY CJ

Judgment delivered 7 August 1998

I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Chesterman J.
I agree with his Honour’s reasons and with the orders he proposes.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 10560 of 1997

Brisbane

Before

de Jersey C.J.
McPherson J.A.
Chesterman J.

[Mansini v. Martin]

BETWEEN:

PETER MANSINI

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:

WAYNE MICHAEL MARTIN

(Plaintiff) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.

Judgment delivered 7 August 1998

For the reasons, with which I agree, given by Chesterman J., I consider that the amount for

which judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff should be reduced to $427,056.00.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 10560 of 1997

Brisbane

Before: de Jersey CJ

McPherson JA
Chesterman J

[Mansini v. Martin]

BETWEEN:

PETER MANSINI

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:

WAYNE MICHAEL MARTIN

(Plaintiff) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - CHESTERMAN J

Judgment delivered 7 August 1998

The appellant asks the court to reduce an award of damages made in favour of the respondent

to compensate him for personal injuries he suffered as the result of the appellant’s admitted negligence.

The trial judge awarded a total of $540,500.00 of which $173,681.00 was assessed as being due in

respect of lost income prior to trial and a sum of $210,710.00 was given as compensation for lost

earning capacity for the future. It is these two components which are challenged.

The plaintiff was 24 years old when he was injured on 23 December, 1988 and 34 when

judgment was given. At the time of injury he was employed as a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney-General v Bax and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1998] QCA 222
Decision Date: 7/08/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney-General v Bax involved the plaintiff, Bax, who sought damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of the defendant's negligence. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. Bax's primary claim was for compensation for past and future economic losses due to the injuries, which prevented him from pursuing his career as a squash player and coach. Additionally, Bax argued for compensation for the loss of a chance to continue his career in squash.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the assessment of damages for both past and future economic loss. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the trial judge's valuation of these losses was excessive. Moreover, the court needed to decide on the appropriate method for assessing the value of the lost chance of pursuing a career in squash, whether through a precise mathematical calculation or a more general evaluation.

In its judgment, the court held that the trial judge's assessment of Bax's past economic loss was accurate and not excessive. However, the court found that the valuation of future economic loss was flawed. The court ruled that the lost chance of a career in squash should be evaluated generally rather than through a precise mathematical calculation. This approach, according to the court, was more aligned with the nature of such speculative future economic losses.

The final orders of the court were that Bax's claim for damages for past economic loss was upheld, while the award for future economic loss was reduced. The court also directed that the lost chance of a career in squash be assessed using a general evaluation method. This decision clarified the appropriate approach to assessing damages for lost career opportunities and provided guidance for future cases involving similar claims.

Orders