CATCIIWOHUS
| DAMAGES | - | E X C E S S I V E | - | I N F E R E N C E S | A N D | A S b E b S M E N T S | IS |
| A B S E K C E | O | F | E X P L I C I T | S T A T E M E N T S | Lh' | .J[lDGMENT | - | APPELLA'CI: |
| V A R I A T I O N | O F A P P O R T I O N Y E N T | - | M0'1'011 | TIlAVF I C | ORD I NANCC |
| 1936 | S . 1 2 4 | - | LAW | REFORM | ( M I S C E L L A h E O U S | P R O V I S I U N S ) |
| ORDTNANCE | 1955-65 | S . 1 5 . |
| BETWEEN | ||
| - | AND |
| C O R M : | NIMMO, | 5'T. | . J O H N , | Mc(;IU?GOR | JJ. |
| IS | T H E | F E D E R A L | COTJRT | O F | A l l S T l W L C 4 | ) |
| A U S T R A L T A N | C A P I T A L | T E R R | LTOIZY | \ | 3 0 . 18 | of' | 107; |
| D I S T R l C T | R E G I S T R Y |
i
| D I V I S I O N | G E N E R A L | ) |
| I T THE FEDERAL | COURT | OF | AUSTIUl . I .4 |
1
| AUSTRALIAN | CAPITAL | TERRITORY | N o . 1H | or | 1!)77 |
| D I S T R I C T | R E G I S T R Y |
| D I V I S I O N | G E X E R A L | j |
-3-
| . | / 4 |
'1 .
c
I
| -. | I . |
.
I
1 0 .
1 ' .
12 .
1
!
1 'I .
l 0 .
I
l
| 1;. | l |
I
18.
.
! !
| . | 1 0 . |
.
.
! I .
.
.
.
.
R
- AGLC
- Gardner, Brian Joseph v Duve, Caroline Francis [1978] FCA 47
- Case
- [1978] FCA 47
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the damages awarded by the trial judge were excessive and whether there were any inferences or assumptions made by the trial judge that were unsupported by explicit statements. The court also needed to determine if there was any variation in the apportionment of damages that was inconsistent with the statutory provisions. The court had to consider the appropriate application of section 124 of the Motor Traffic Act 1936 and section 15 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance 1955-65.
The court found that the damages awarded by the trial judge were excessive, and there were unsupported inferences and assumptions made during the judgment. The trial judge's variation in the apportionment of damages did not align with the statutory provisions. The Federal Court of Australia, in its ruling, allowed the appeal and varied the apportionment of damages accordingly. The orders of the court mandated a new assessment of damages, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements and a fair reflection of the plaintiff's losses.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.