DE SALES -v- INGRILLI [2000] WASCA 374
| (2000) 23 WAR 417 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 374 | |
| Case No: | FUL:174/1999 | 2 JUNE & 28 JULY 2000 | |
| Coram: | WALLWORK J PARKER J MILLER J | 1/12/00 | |
| 41 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Award of $609,399 substituted for award of $544,693 Cross appeal allowed on issue of funeral expenses | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | TERESA MARGARET DE SALES ALBERT INGRILLI |
Catchwords: | Damages Fatal accidents action Proper basis upon which to assess past and future loss Allowance for dependency Discount for prospect of remarriage Whether allowance should be made for parental guidance Whether allowance should be made for prospective earnings after deceased's normal age of retirement Proper allowance for funeral expenses Whether allowance should be made for simple headstone |
Legislation: | Fatal Accidents Act 1959, s 5(1) Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941, s 5 |
Case References: | Biddulph v Lenegan, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 990076; 19 February 1999 Black v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust [1986] WAR 32 Bowen v Tutte (1990) A Torts Rep 81-043 Bresatz v Przibilla (1962) 108 CLR 541 Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64 Cookson v Knowles [1977] QB 913 Cunningham v Nominal Defendant (1970) 17 FLR 61 Foyster v Goynich [1984] WAR 80 Gammell v Wilson [1982] AC 27 Goldstein v Salvation Army Assurance Society [1917] 2 KB 291 Hamlyn v Hann & Anor [1967] SASR 387 Henderson v Oswald [1965] WAR 54 Hermann v Johnston [1972] WAR 121 Jenkins v Harrison [1964] VR 637 Jongen v CSR Ltd (1992) A Tort Rep 81-192 Kember v Thackrah [2000] WASCA 198 Key v Commissioner for Railways (1941) 41 SR (NSW) 60 Knight v Anderson (1997) 17 WAR 534 Knight v Anderson (1997) 17 WAR 85 Lamb v Southern Tablelands County Council (1988) A Tort Rep 80-220 Malec v Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 Matthew v Floor [1939] SASR 389 McDonald v Hughes [1957] St R Qd 448 Medlin v The State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1 Mills v Shire of Mundaring, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970403; 15 August 1997 Morris v Zanki (1997) 18 WAR 260 Poseidon Ltd & Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332 Ruby v Marsh (1975) 132 CLR 642 Stanton v Ewart F Youlden Ltd [1960] 1 All ER 429 State Government Insurance Office (Qld) v Biemann (1983) 154 CLR 539 Tilbee v Wakefield [2000] WASCA 143 Watson v Burley (1962) 180 CLR 635 Zotovic v Dobel Boat Hire Pty Ltd (1985) 62 ACTR 29 Australian Telecommunications Commission v Parsons (1985) 59 ALR 535 Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300 Charleston v Smith [1999] WASCA 261 Dislieff v Connell, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No D970227; 30 July 1997 Frichot v Zalmstra & Anor, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No D970158; 15 May 1997 Heffernan v Occidental Minerals Corporation of Australia [1978] 2 NSWLR… |
Continue reading De Sales v Ingrilli
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- De Sales v Ingrilli [2000] WASCA 374
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 374
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of De Sales v Ingrilli involved a claim for damages in the context of a fatal accident action. The deceased, who was the plaintiff's husband, died in a motor vehicle accident caused by the defendant. The plaintiff sought compensation for both past and future losses, including dependency, potential remarriage, parental guidance, prospective earnings post-retirement, funeral expenses, and a simple headstone. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate basis for assessing these various components of damages.
The primary legal issues before the court were the correct methodology for assessing past and future loss of dependency, whether a discount for the prospect of remarriage should be applied, if any allowance should be made for parental guidance, whether prospective earnings after the deceased's normal retirement age should be considered, the proper allowance for funeral expenses, and whether an allowance should be made for a simple headstone. The court needed to consider both the legislative framework and relevant case law to address these issues.
In its reasoning, the court concluded that the initial award made by the lower court was inadequate. It allowed the appeal in part by substituting a higher award of damages, reflecting a more comprehensive assessment of the plaintiff's losses. The court also allowed the cross-appeal regarding funeral expenses, finding that the original award did not properly account for these costs. The court's decision emphasised the importance of a detailed and holistic approach to damages in fatal accident cases, ensuring that all legitimate losses are considered and adequately compensated.
The final orders of the court included an adjustment of the damages award to $609,399 from the original $544,693, and a specific allowance for funeral expenses that the lower court had overlooked. This decision underscored the need for a thorough evaluation of all elements of loss in fatal accident claims, providing a clear guideline for future cases involving similar issues.
The primary legal issues before the court were the correct methodology for assessing past and future loss of dependency, whether a discount for the prospect of remarriage should be applied, if any allowance should be made for parental guidance, whether prospective earnings after the deceased's normal retirement age should be considered, the proper allowance for funeral expenses, and whether an allowance should be made for a simple headstone. The court needed to consider both the legislative framework and relevant case law to address these issues.
In its reasoning, the court concluded that the initial award made by the lower court was inadequate. It allowed the appeal in part by substituting a higher award of damages, reflecting a more comprehensive assessment of the plaintiff's losses. The court also allowed the cross-appeal regarding funeral expenses, finding that the original award did not properly account for these costs. The court's decision emphasised the importance of a detailed and holistic approach to damages in fatal accident cases, ensuring that all legitimate losses are considered and adequately compensated.
The final orders of the court included an adjustment of the damages award to $609,399 from the original $544,693, and a specific allowance for funeral expenses that the lower court had overlooked. This decision underscored the need for a thorough evaluation of all elements of loss in fatal accident claims, providing a clear guideline for future cases involving similar issues.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Award of $609,399 substituted for award of $544,693
Cross appeal allowed on issue of funeral expenses
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.