DUVAL -v- PEDERSON [2005] WASCA 39
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2005] WASCA 39 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:145/2003 | 18 FEBRUARY 2005 | |
| Coram: | ROBERTS-SMITH JA MCLURE JA PULLIN JA | 10/03/05 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | STEPHEN ANTHONY DUVAL GLEN PEDERSON |
Catchwords: | Tort Personal injuries Damages Loss of earning capacity |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Duval v Pederson [2003] WADC 197 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 138 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1 Miller v Jennings (1954) 92 CLR 190 Trigwell v Trigwell (1997) 18 WAR 83 Watts v Turpin (1999) 21 WAR 402 Wilson v Peisley (1975) 50 ALJR 207 Arthur Robinson (Grafton) Pty Ltd v Carter (1968) 122 CLR 649 Cawrse v Cocks (1974) 10 SASR 10 Cullen v Trappell (1980) 146 CLR 1 Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340 Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161 Lyszkowicz v Colin Earnshaw Homes Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 205 Mann v Ellbourn (1974) 8 SASR 298 Paff v Speed (1961) 105 CLR 549 Paul v Rendell (1981) 34 ALR 569 Bresatz v Przibilla (1962) 108 CLR 541 Teubner v Humble (1963) 108 CLR 491 Thomas v O'Shea (1989) A Tort Rep 80251 Whitaker v Rogers (1990) A Tort Rep 81062 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : DUVAL -v- PEDERSON [2005] WASCA 39 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH JA
- MCLURE JA
PULLIN JA
- Appellant
AND
GLEN PEDERSON
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MARTINO DCJ
Citation : DUVAL -v- PEDERSON [2003] WADC 197
File No : CIV 2515 of 2001
Catchwords:
Tort - Personal injuries - Damages - Loss of earning capacity
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr I L K Marshall
Respondent : Mr D R Sands
Solicitors:
Appellant : Ilberys
Respondent : Talbot & Olivier
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Duval v Pederson [2003] WADC 197
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 138
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Miller v Jennings (1954) 92 CLR 190
Trigwell v Trigwell (1997) 18 WAR 83
Watts v Turpin (1999) 21 WAR 402
Wilson v Peisley (1975) 50 ALJR 207
Case(s) also cited:
Arthur Robinson (Grafton) Pty Ltd v Carter (1968) 122 CLR 649
Cawrse v Cocks (1974) 10 SASR 10
Cullen v Trappell (1980) 146 CLR 1
Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340
(Page 3)
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Lyszkowicz v Colin Earnshaw Homes Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 205
Mann v Ellbourn (1974) 8 SASR 298
Paff v Speed (1961) 105 CLR 549
Paul v…
Continue reading Duval v Pederson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Duval v Pederson [2005] WASCA 39
- Case
- [2005] WASCA 39
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Duval and Pederson were the parties involved in this case which was heard by the Court of Appeal. Duval, the appellant, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a car accident caused by Pederson, the respondent. The primary dispute centred around the quantification of Duval's damages, particularly the assessment of loss of earning capacity. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the primary judge's determination of these damages.
The central legal issues revolved around the principles and methodology applied by the primary judge in assessing Duval's loss of earning capacity. The appellant contested the primary judge's approach, arguing that it undervalued his capacity to earn income in the future. Specifically, Duval contended that the primary judge did not adequately consider his potential to enter and succeed in alternative employment sectors. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the primary judge's assessment was fair and appropriately reflected Duval's diminished earning potential.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had properly applied the relevant legal principles and methodology in assessing Duval's loss of earning capacity. The Court held that the evidence presented did not support the appellant's contention that he could easily transition to and succeed in alternative employment sectors. The Court also noted that the primary judge had considered the appellant's prospects for future employment and had made a reasoned assessment based on the evidence before him. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the primary judge's determination of damages.
The central legal issues revolved around the principles and methodology applied by the primary judge in assessing Duval's loss of earning capacity. The appellant contested the primary judge's approach, arguing that it undervalued his capacity to earn income in the future. Specifically, Duval contended that the primary judge did not adequately consider his potential to enter and succeed in alternative employment sectors. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the primary judge's assessment was fair and appropriately reflected Duval's diminished earning potential.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had properly applied the relevant legal principles and methodology in assessing Duval's loss of earning capacity. The Court held that the evidence presented did not support the appellant's contention that he could easily transition to and succeed in alternative employment sectors. The Court also noted that the primary judge had considered the appellant's prospects for future employment and had made a reasoned assessment based on the evidence before him. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the primary judge's determination of damages.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.