Dighton v The Nominal Defendant (No 2) - [2012] SADC 1

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
DIGHTON v THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT (No 2)
[2012] SADC 1
Judgment of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
23 December 2011
DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURIES - METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
Assessment of damages for personal injury. Turns on own facts.
Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) s 52, referred to.
Marlec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638; The Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Limited (1991) 174 CLR 64, applied.

DIGHTON v THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT (No 2)
[2012] SADC 1
The primary judgment

On 8 December 2011 the court delivered reasons for judgment in this matter in which it made primary findings of fact in relation to liability and certain consequential aspects relating to damages.[1] The court did not proceed to enter judgment because the claimed heads of damages were not fully addressed by the parties, particularly the defendant. The court therefore adjourned for further consideration the question of damages in order to enable the parties to make final submissions as to the monetary amounts that should be entered in respect of each of the claimed heads in light of the conclusions the court has already reached.
[1] Dighton v The Nominal Defendant [2011] SADC 187
During the trial the plaintiff formulated his calculations in some detail, converted into dollar terms under several heads, particularly with respect to past and future loss of earnings.[2] The defendant did not respond to these at all, either in its written or subsequent oral submissions. It has since done so in a written submission filed yesterday.
[2] Plaintiff's written submissions 11 July 2011 paras 148-223
The defendant has not for the better part contested the bases upon which the claims for damages are made and more particularly it has not disputed the calculations submitted by the plaintiff. That being so it is now appropriate to consider the calculations and enter judgment in accordance with the reasons of the court.
Non-economic loss
In the principle judgment the court assigned a numerical value of 23 to reflect the due entitlement to non-economic loss pursuant to s 52 of the Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA).[3] It is agreed between the parties that the appropriate prescribed amount translates to a dollar figure of $46,480, so judgment will be entered in that amount for non-economic loss.
[3] At para [131]
Past loss of earnings
The court concluded that projected pre-trial economic loss was to be reduced by 40 per cent in order to give due effect to adverse contingencies and the established work history and personal background of the plaintiff before the subject accident. The court’s reasoning process was this:[4]
[137] At this point it is necessary to make further findings as to the cause and duration of work incapacity. There is little organic or physical basis for Mr Dighton’s injuries but there remains a severe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Mr Dighton’s calculations make no allowance for…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dighton v The Nominal Defendant (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] SADC 1
Decision Date: 23 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dighton v The Nominal Defendant (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, with the court being tasked to determine the measure of damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought compensation for injuries sustained in an accident caused by the defendant's negligence. The central issue before the court was to decide the appropriate method for assessing the damages, particularly focusing on the remoteness and the measure of those damages.

The court had to deliberate on several legal issues, primarily the method of assessing damages in personal injury cases and whether the damages claimed were too remote from the defendant's negligence to be recoverable. The court examined the established principles for assessing damages, including the consideration of the extent of the injury, the impact on the plaintiff's life, and the applicable legal precedents. The plaintiff argued for a comprehensive assessment of both economic and non-economic losses, while the defendant contested the recoverability of certain damages, particularly those deemed too remote.

In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged the plaintiff's significant injuries and the profound impact on his life. The court found that the method of assessing damages should consider both the immediate and long-term consequences of the injuries. The court ruled that some of the damages claimed by the plaintiff were too remote and not recoverable, while others were deemed reasonably foreseeable and thus recoverable. The court applied a balanced approach, ensuring that the damages awarded were fair and just, reflecting the true extent of the plaintiff's losses.

The final orders of the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for certain damages, which were found to be both foreseeable and proximately caused by the defendant's negligence. The court awarded the plaintiff a specific amount of damages, taking into account the principles of remoteness and the measure of damages in tort law. The decision provided clarity on the assessment of damages in personal injury cases, reinforcing the importance of a thorough and equitable approach in determining compensation.

Orders