Commonwealth of Australia v Stankowski

The Commonwealth of Australia appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a judgment of O'Keefe J, who had awarded damages to the respondent, Mr. Stankowski, for negligence. The dispute concerned Mr. Stankowski's claim for post-traumatic stress disorder arising from his employment with the appellant.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge had failed to properly use or had palpably misused his advantage in assessing the evidence, particularly concerning the findings of fact and the assessment of damages. Key issues included whether the trial judge's findings were inconsistent with incontrovertibly established facts or were glaringly improbable, and whether the expert opinion evidence relied upon was of value given the histories assumed by the experts. The court also considered whether the general damages awarded were manifestly excessive, whether damages for loss of chance and other damages were duplicated, and whether there had been procedural unfairness or apprehended bias leading to the discharge of the jury.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge had not erred in his findings of fact or in his assessment of the expert evidence, there had been an error in the calculation of damages, leading to a duplication of an amount awarded for loss of earning capacity. The court reasoned that this duplication resulted in an excessive award of general damages. The court also addressed the issue of interest on costs, confirming the trial judge's order in that regard.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, with the verdict and judgment for the plaintiff being set aside and a reduced sum substituted. The orders relating to the payment of costs of the trial and interest on costs were otherwise confirmed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, and the respondent's cross-appeal was dismissed with costs.