Coates v Carter

The appellant, Richard Coates, brought an action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the respondent, Edward George Harcourt Carter, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision. The appellant alleged the respondent's negligence caused the accident, resulting in serious injuries to his jaw, including multiple fractures, loss of teeth, disfigurement, and ongoing pain and suffering. A jury awarded the appellant £475 in total damages, comprising £165 in special damages and £310 for general damages. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Australia after the Full Court of the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal against the jury's verdict.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the sum awarded for general damages (£310) was so inadequate as to be unreasonable, thereby entitling the appellant to a new trial. The court was required to determine if the jury, in assessing general damages for pain, suffering, permanent disability, and future consequences, had failed to properly consider all relevant aspects of the appellant's injuries and their impact. This involved assessing whether the jury's award bore a reasonable proportion to the severity of the injuries, the pain and suffering endured, and the permanent disfigurement and functional impairments, including difficulties with mastication and potential future health issues.

The High Court reasoned that while the assessment of damages is primarily within the province of the jury, their verdict is subject to review if it is demonstrably unreasonable. Applying this principle, the court found that the £310 awarded for general damages was unreasonably small given the serious and permanent nature of the appellant's injuries. Despite acknowledging that the jury could discount certain expert opinions regarding future health consequences and consider pre-existing dental conditions, the court concluded that the extent of the fractures, the pain and suffering, the period of incapacitation, the removal of teeth and bone, and the resulting disfigurement and mastication difficulties warranted a significantly higher award. The court held that the jury must have failed to adequately consider all heads of damage, leading to an unreasonable assessment.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, discharged the order of the Supreme Court, and ordered a new trial of the action. The costs of the first trial were to abide the event, and the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court and the costs of the High Court appeal.