Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited v Haleluka

Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a judgment of the District Court of New South Wales. The appeal concerned the assessment of damages awarded to the respondent, Ms Haleluka, for injuries sustained in an incident at a Coles supermarket.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge erred in the assessment of non-economic loss and future economic loss, specifically by rejecting a "buffer" approach. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge made an error in assessing the past and future domestic assistance required by Ms Haleluka, given a factual finding that her husband provided seven hours of gratuitous care per week.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's approach. Regarding non-economic loss, the court affirmed that there is no requirement for an objective standard when assessing the quantum of past gratuitous domestic care. The trial judge's factual finding of seven hours per week of care was upheld. Similarly, the rejection of the "buffer" approach in favour of a more direct assessment of future economic loss was found to be within the trial judge's discretion and not an error of law.

The appeal was dismissed, and Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.