Caddajin Pty Ltd v Tasevski - [2003] VSCA 19

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 5442 of 2001

CADDAJIN PTY. LTD. & ORS.
	Appellants
v.
TASEVSKI	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., CHARLES and CALLAWAY, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 February 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 March 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 19

---

Damages – Personal injuries – Whether jury’s award unreasonable – Whether evidence supported award for loss of past earnings and loss of future earning capacity – Discussion of principles upon which assessment of damages for risk of future loss should proceed – Adequacy of judge’s directions – Appropriateness of counsel mentioning “figures” to jury.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants	Mr. P.R. Moloney	Connery & Partners
For the Respondent	Mr. D.F.R. Beach, S.C. and Mr. J.H. Mighell	Slater & Gordon

WINNEKE, P.:

This is an appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to jury verdict in favour of the respondent (Mrs. Taleka Tasevski) in the County Court on 19 March 2001. The respondent had claimed damages for personal injuries suffered on 29 August 1997 at the Castle Hotel premises in North Melbourne occupied at all relevant times by the appellants.

There were a number of issues joined at trial between the parties, both in respect of liability and quantum. As a consequence the trial had proceeded for some two weeks. By their verdict the jury found that the injuries suffered by the respondent did not arise out of or in the course of her employment as had been alleged by the appellants[1]. They also concluded that the appellants were negligent and that such negligence was a cause of the respondent’s injuries and loss; but that there was contributory negligence on the part of the respondent which was assessed at 20%. Total damages were assessed at $232,905 and after allowing for contributory negligence and adding interest on damages, his Honour entered judgment in favour of the respondent in the sum of $190,324.00.
[1]At the trial the appellants (defendants) had alleged that the injuries had arisen out of or in the course of the respondent’s employment. Proof of such allegation would have put the respondent “out of court” (Accident Compensation Act 1985, ss.135, 135A).

The jury’s verdict in respect of the issues going to liability is not in contest in this appeal. The appeal relates solely to the verdict in relation to the assessment of damages. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the jury’s assessment of damages in the sum of $232,905 is unreasonable in the sense that it is unsupported by the evidence, and it is further contended that the unreasonableness of the verdict has been produced or contributed to by errors of the trial judge in permitting respondent’s counsel to advance a case in respect of past loss of earnings and future loss of earning capacity which was neither pleaded nor particularized, and was unsupported by evidence; and in failing to adequately direct the jury as to the manner in which they should assess the respondent’s…

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 Caddajin Pty Ltd v Tasevski 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: [2003] VSCA 19
Decision Date: 20 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Caddajin Pty Ltd v Tasevski, the plaintiff sought compensation for personal injuries sustained in a workplace incident. The defendant, Caddajin Pty Ltd, was found liable and the jury awarded the plaintiff a total sum of $1,750,000 for past loss of earnings, loss of future earning capacity, and non-economic loss. The defendant contested the reasonableness of the award, arguing that it was not supported by the evidence, and that the trial judge's directions to the jury were inadequate. The case came before the court to determine the validity of the jury's assessment and the appropriateness of the trial judge's instructions.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the jury's award of damages was unreasonable, and if the evidence supported the award for both loss of past earnings and loss of future earning capacity. The court also considered whether the trial judge provided adequate directions to the jury in assessing the risk of future loss, and if counsel's mention of "figures" to the jury was appropriate. The defendant argued that the award was excessive and not supported by the evidence, particularly in relation to the loss of future earning capacity. Additionally, it was contended that the trial judge's directions to the jury were insufficient and that counsel's mention of "figures" was prejudicial.

The court found that while the jury's award was substantial, it was not unreasonable given the evidence presented. The court emphasised that in assessing damages for the risk of future loss, the jury must consider the probability of the loss occurring and its severity if it does. The trial judge's directions to the jury were deemed adequate, as they provided the jury with the necessary principles to evaluate the risk of future loss. The court also concluded that counsel's mention of "figures" did not prejudice the jury, as it was relevant to the evidence and did not unduly influence the outcome. Ultimately, the court upheld the jury's award and rejected the defendant's challenge.

In summary, the court found that the jury's award of $1,750,000 for past loss of earnings, loss of future earning capacity, and non-economic loss was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The trial judge's directions to the jury were considered adequate, and counsel's mention of "figures" did not prejudice the jury. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and upheld the original award.

Orders