Colmark (Australia) Pty Ltd v Hall - [1998] QCA 105

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 7507 of 1997

Brisbane

BeforeMcPherson J.A.
Pincus J.A.
Derrington J.

[Colmark (Aust.) P/L. v. Hall]

BETWEEN:

COLMARK (AUSTRALIA) PTY. LTD.
ACN 010 479 473
(Defendant) Appellant

AND:

BRUCE EDWARD HALL
(Plaintiff) Respondent

Judgment delivered 26 May 1998

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

APPEAL ALLOWED WITH COSTS. JUDGMENT BELOW SET ASIDE AND IN LIEU THEREOF JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE SUM OF $89,658 TOGETHER WITH COSTS ON THE DISTRICT COURT SCALE.

CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES - Excessive - whether amounts awarded for economic loss up until trial and for future economic loss were excessive given respondent’s poor work history - discounting - general damages - loss of amenities of life - “egg-shell skull” - effect of psychological affliction upon recovery from physical injury.

Counsel:Mr P.A. Hastie for the appellant
Mr J.W. Lee for the respondent

Solicitors:Cleary Hoare for the appellant
Goodfellow & Scott for the respondent

Hearing Date: 27 April 1998

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.

Judgment delivered 26 May 1998

For the reasons given by Derrington J., I agree that the appeal should be allowed with costs, and the judgment varied to the extent specified in those reasons.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS J.A.

I have read the reasons of Derrington J. Claims for damages for personal injury present particular difficulties where, as here, there is a relatively minor soft tissue injury which is said to have brought very serious consequences. It is true that the soft tissue injury in the present case had added to it a flake fracture; but it does not appear that this made any significant difference. The assessments of disability were 3% of the right leg (Dr Tuffley) and 5% (Dr Gillett). This is an injury low in the range of seriousness, suffered by a man who had been unemployed for 85% of the decade prior to the accident; it was thought by the learned trial judge to be properly compensated by an award of over $150,000 damages.

Such an award was in the circumstances of this case plainly excessive. In my opinion a cautious approach to assessments of damages in such cases - i.e. those in which an injury of no great significance is alleged to have been seriously disabling - is generally justified and should have been adopted with respect to this respondent. In my opinion the amount proposed by Derrington J. does not by any means represent a miserly approach.

I am in general agreement with his Honour’s reasons and concur in the order proposed.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - DERRINGTON J

The appellant's liability is not in issue and the appeal is directed only to the quantum of damages.
The damages awarded were $154,078.34. The components said to be manifestly excessive are–
(1)General Damages $30,000
(2)Economic Loss up until Trial $50,000
(3)Future Economic Loss $78,200

There was an error in the learned trial judge’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.

Continue reading Colmark (Australia) Pty Ltd v Hall

Details

AGLC: Colmark (Australia) Pty Ltd v Hall [1998] QCA 105
Case: [1998] QCA 105
Decision Date: 26 May 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Colmark (Australia) Pty Ltd appealed against a damages award made in favour of Bruce Edward Hall, who had suffered an injury to his right foot. The appeal was directed solely at the quantum of damages awarded by the trial judge. The trial judge had awarded Hall $154,078.34 in damages. The components said to be excessive were general damages ($30,000), economic loss up until the trial ($50,000), and future economic loss ($78,200). The Court of Appeal held that the award was excessive and varied the judgment to reflect the appropriate damages of $89,658. The appeal was allowed with costs. The trial judgment was set aside and replaced with a new judgment awarding Hall $89,658 together with costs on the District Court scale.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the damages awarded to Hall were excessive given his poor work history and psychological affliction. The trial judge had awarded substantial damages despite Hall's minor injury and poor employment history. The Court of Appeal held that the award was excessive and varied the judgment downwards. They found that a cautious approach to damages assessments was warranted in cases where an injury of no great significance was alleged to have been seriously disabling. The Court of Appeal also found that the trial judge had incorrectly based his assessment on the mistaken belief that Hall was rarely unemployed prior to the accident.

The Court of Appeal found that Hall's injury, though minor, had precipitated some emotional reaction which had endured. However, the award for general damages was considered too high. The Court of Appeal found that the best award for general damages should have been $25,000. For economic loss, the Court of Appeal found that Hall should have been awarded $30,000 for pre-trial loss and $40,000 for future economic loss, taking into account Hall's poor work history and emotional vulnerability. The Court of Appeal therefore varied the judgment to reflect the appropriate damages of $89,658 together with costs.

Orders