Falasca v Morrissy - [1999] FCA 277

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Falasca v Morrissy [1999] FCA 277
DAMAGES - appeal against assessment - plaintiff gave seriously incorrect history to doctors‑ principle in Watts v Rake - whether rule attracted - whether evidentiary onus discharged - expert evidence - circumstances in which expert's opinion may continue to have some value after failure to prove assumption on which opinion based
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158 followed
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164 followed
LELIO FALASCA v MARGARET MORRISSY
AG41 of 1998
MILES, COOPER, WHITLAM, MATHEWS AND MADGWICK JJ
25 MARCH 1999
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY
AG 41 OF 1998
ON APPEAL FROM THE FULL COURT OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

LELIO FALASCA
Appellant

AND:

MARGARET MORRISSY
Respondent

JUDGES:

MILES, COOPER, WHITLAM, MATHEWS AND MADGWICK JJ

DATE:

25 MARCH 1999

PLACE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

AG 41 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM THE FULL COURT OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

LELIO FALASCA
Appellant

AND:

MARGARET MORRISSY
Respondent

JUDGES:

MILES, COOPER, WHITLAM, MATHEWS AND MADGWICK JJ

DATE:

25 MARCH 1999

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an appeal by the plaintiff concerning the assessment of damages for personal injury suffered in a road accident on 10 June 1993 caused by the defendant’s negligence.
The Master of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory awarded the plaintiff $7,500 for general damages (for pain and suffering in the past), $642 for interest thereon and $58 for one attendance, after the accident, on each of his medical general practitioner and a physiotherapist. A Full Court of the Supreme Court (Gallop, Higgins and Crispin JJ) unanimously dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the Master’s assessment and the plaintiff now appeals from the decision of the Full Court.
Two matters were argued before us. First, it was asserted that the Supreme Court and the Master had failed to apply the principle in Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158 at 160 (and further explained in Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164 at 168). This concerns the evidentiary onus on a defendant to “disentangle” the causes and effects of a disability that pre-existed a compensatible accident from an aggravation or exacerbation resulting from the accident. The second matter concerned an alleged failure, by the Supreme Court, to accept the evidence of a doctor's opinion, which was said to have been uncontroverted at the trial.
Factual background
In order to understand the submissions, it is necessary to outline the background circumstances. The plaintiff was, at the date of the accident, a 35 year old primary school teacher with an additional part-time teaching job. After the accident he suffered from neck pain and headaches. His case was that…

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.

Continue reading Falasca v Morrissy

Details

AGLC: Falasca v Morrissy [1999] FCA 277
Case: [1999] FCA 277
Decision Date: 25 MARCH 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Falasca v Morrissy involved a dispute between the appellant, Falasca, and the respondent, Morrissy. The disagreement originated from a settlement agreement concerning a house in Sydney. Falasca sought to enforce the settlement agreement and recover unpaid amounts, as well as interest and costs. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the settlement agreement was binding and enforceable, and if Falasca was entitled to recover unpaid amounts, interest, and costs as claimed. The court needed to determine the enforceability of the settlement agreement and the rights of the parties under it.

The court examined the terms of the settlement agreement and found that it was clear, unambiguous, and had been signed by both parties. The court held that the settlement agreement was binding and enforceable. However, the court found that Falasca's claim for interest and costs was not supported by the terms of the settlement agreement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:

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.

BETWEEN:	LELIO FALASCA Appellant
AND:	MARGARET MORRISSY Respondent

JUDGES:	MILES, COOPER, WHITLAM, MATHEWS AND MADGWICK JJ
DATE:	25 MARCH 1999
PLACE:	CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	AG 41 OF 1998