Circosta v Falzon

The appeal in *Circosta v Falzon* concerned the assessment of damages for non-economic and economic loss. The primary dispute revolved around whether the trial judge had adequately considered all relevant evidence when awarding damages, particularly in light of potential exaggeration in the histories provided by the plaintiff to medical experts.

The court was required to determine two principal legal issues. Firstly, whether the assessment of non-economic loss had properly accounted for evidence suggesting that the plaintiff's accounts to medical professionals were inflated. Secondly, the court had to consider whether the evidence presented justified the assessment of economic loss based on an adjusted average weekly earning figure for a tradesperson.

In addressing the assessment of non-economic loss, the court found no point of principle had been established, implying the trial judge's findings were permissible on the facts. Regarding economic loss, the court held that the approach taken by the trial judge, which involved factoring up the average weekly earnings of a tradesman, was a permissible course of action, supported by established legal principles and prior authorities such as *Dunlany v The Hunters Hill Bus Co Pty Ltd*, *Graham v Baker*, *Husher v Husher*, and *Todorovic v Waller*. The court concluded that the evidence presented at trial justified the assessment made.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.