Donald v McKeown

The appeal in *Donald v McKeown* concerned a dispute over damages awarded to the appellant, Mr Donald, following a motor vehicle accident. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Mr Donald contended that the damages awarded by the trial judge were inadequate, particularly in relation to his past and future economic loss.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge had erred in failing to adequately consider certain components of Mr Donald's economic loss. Specifically, the Court was asked to determine if superannuation entitlements and rent concessions had been overlooked in the calculation of past and future economic loss, and if a service allowance had been improperly excluded. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the opportunity for civil employment, which might have offered a higher wage than his military service, had been sufficiently accounted for, and whether the overall assessment of past and future wage loss and loss of superannuation was manifestly insufficient, especially considering the eventual end of his military career. The Court also had to assess whether both positive and negative contingencies had been appropriately taken into account when determining future economic loss.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge had erred in the assessment of future economic loss. While acknowledging the trial judge's careful review of the evidence, including the finding that Mr Donald's primary injury was a ligamentous tear in his left shoulder, the Court determined that the original award for future economic loss was insufficient. The Court reasoned that the original assessment had not adequately captured the full economic consequences of Mr Donald's injuries and his subsequent discharge from the army.

Consequently, the Supreme Court of New South Wales ordered that the appeal be allowed to the extent of increasing the award for future economic loss from $26,000 to $100,000. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs.