Dalton v Pinkerton

Case [2017] ACTSC 28


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Dalton v Pinkerton

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 28

Hearing Date:

6 February 2017

DecisionDate:

17 February 2017

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

The orders of the Magistrates Court are set aside.  Judgment for the appellant in the sum of $45 040.  Each party is to pay its own appeal costs.

Catchwords:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – Appeal from Magistrates Court – Personal injury – Motor vehicle accident – Damages – Matters to be considered in reduction of damages – Credibility of oral testimony – Credibility of plaintiff – Calculating out-of-pocket expenses

Legislation Cited:

Health and Other Services Compensation Act (Cth) s 23(5)

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) pt 4.5

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37E

Cases Cited:

De Marco v Italo-Australian Club (ACT) Ltd [2010] ACTSC 28

Dojcinoski v Aleksovski [2015] ACTSC 357
Eames v Shain [2012] ACTSC 116
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118
Graham v Baker [1961] HCA 48; 106 CLR 340
Gray v Richards (No 2) [2014] HCA 47; 315 ALR 1
Griffiths v Kirkmeyer [1977] HCA 45; 139 CLR 161
Malek v Remondis Australia Pty Ltd [2015] ACTSC 135
MBP (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic [1991] HCA 3; 171 CLR 657
Ning v McGrath [2015] ACTSC 163; 71 MVR 376
RailPro Services Pty Ltd v Flavel [2015] FCA 504; 242 FCR 424
Ryan v Vizovitis [2017] ACTCA 3
Singh v Cooper [2016] ACTCA 55; 78 MVR 201

Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; 142 CLR 531

Parties:

Stephen Raymond Dalton (Appellant)

David Pinkerton (First Respondent)

Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance (Second Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr A Hausfeld (Appellant)

Mr K Rewell SC (First and Second Respondents)

Solicitors

Blumers Lawyers (Appellant)

Sparke Helmore (First and Second Respondents)

File Number:

SCA 20 of 2016

Decision under appeal: 

Court:  ACT Magistrates Court

Before:  Magistrate Boss

Date of Decision:         9 March 2016

Case Title:  Stephen Raymond Dalton v David Pinkerton & Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance

Court File Number:      CS 626 of 2013

MURRELL CJ:

The appeal

  1. On 18 June 2010, the appellant’s vehicle was stationary at a roundabout on the corner of Sulwood Drive and Sainsbury Street in Kambah, when it was hit from behind by a vehicle driven by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent.  The appellant suffered a whiplash injury.

  1. The appellant commenced proceedings in the Magistrates Court.  Liability was admitted and the matter proceeded as an assessment of damages.  The appellant claimed that he suffered multiple injuries, particularly to his neck and lower back.  He said that the main ongoing disability was headaches.  The respondents did not dispute that the appellant continued to suffer from headaches associated with cervical facet joint inflammation, but disputed the severity and frequency of the headaches.

  1. Magistrate Boss (the Magistrate) accepted that it was likely that the appellant’s pre-existing degenerative lower back condition was to some extent aggravated by…

Continue reading Dalton v Pinkerton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dalton v Pinkerton [2017] ACTSC 28
Case
[2017] ACTSC 28
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dalton appealed against a decision of the Magistrates Court that reduced his damages for a personal injury claim following a motor vehicle accident. The primary judge found the plaintiff's evidence to be inconsistent, particularly in relation to the extent of his injuries and the nature of his out-of-pocket expenses. The appeal focused on the assessment of damages and the approach to credibility and the calculation of expenses.

The legal issues included the standard of proof for damages, the appropriate weight to give to oral testimony, and the correct method for calculating out-of-pocket expenses. The appeal court had to determine whether the primary judge had erred in the assessment of damages and the approach to credibility, and if the decision was unreasonable.

The appeal court held that the primary judge had erred in the assessment of damages and the approach to credibility. The court found that the primary judge had not properly considered the totality of the evidence and had made errors in the calculation of out-of-pocket expenses. The court held that the plaintiff's evidence was consistent and credible, and that the primary judge's approach to the calculation of expenses was flawed. The appeal court set aside the orders of the Magistrates Court and entered judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $45 040. Each party was to pay its own appeal costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Magistrates Court are set aside. Judgment for the appellant in the sum of $45 040. Each party is to pay its own appeal costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.