Gaundar v Hogan

The appeal in *Gaundar v Hogan* concerned a dispute over damages awarded for personal injury. The primary judge had awarded the respondent, Mr Hogan, damages in the sum of $599,586. The appellant, Ms Gaundar, appealed this decision.

The central legal issue before the appellate court was whether the primary judge's reasons for the damages award were inadequate to the point of demonstrating error. The court also considered the appropriate costs order, particularly in light of a concession made by the respondent shortly before the trial.

The appellate court acknowledged that a primary judge is often in a better position than an appellate court to assess evidence. It held that mere insufficiency in reasons alone will not lead to the setting aside of a judgment; rather, an error must be demonstrated. Reading the primary judge's reasons in the context of the trial as a whole, the court found no error in the assessment of damages. However, the court allowed the appeal on other grounds, specifically to correct the quantum of damages awarded. The figure of $599,586 was amended to $575,411. Despite the concession made by the respondent, the appeal would have proceeded on other grounds, leading to the appellant being ordered to pay four-fifths of the respondent's costs on appeal.