Geelong Leather Pty Ltd v Delaney - [2014] VSCA 98

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2013 0138
GEELONG LEATHER PTY LTD	Appellant
v
MICHAEL DELANEY	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, BEACH JA and KYROU AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	8 May 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 May 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSCA 98
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Delaney v Geelong Leather Pty Ltd (County Court of Victoria, Judge Brookes, 3 September 2013)

---

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – Appeal – Jury trial – Damages – Pain and suffering damages – Whether jury’s assessment of pain and suffering damages was not open on the evidence – Whether jury’s assessment of pain and suffering damages was manifestly excessive – Relevance of amounts awarded in other cases – Jury’s assessment open on the evidence – Jury’s assessment not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr T J Casey QC with Ms M Norton	Minter Ellison
For the Respondent	Mr A D B Ingram with Ms N Wolski	Slater & Gordon

MAXWELL P:

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Beach JA. For the reasons which his Honour gives, I too would dismiss the appeal.

BEACH JA:

Introduction

Mr Michael Delaney, the respondent, was employed by Geelong Leather Pty Ltd, the appellant, for a period during 2008 and 2009. On 12 June 2009, the respondent was stacking hides with a fellow employee, in the course of his employment with the appellant, when the respondent noticed a twinge and heard a popping sound in his lower back. A subsequent MRI scan showed a focal right posterolateral shallow disc protrusion which was impinging on the right L5 nerve.

Following the suffering of this injury, the respondent issued a proceeding against the appellant in which the respondent claimed that he suffered injury in the course of his employment with the appellant, and in particular in the course of his employment on 12 June 2009. The respondent claimed that he suffered injury as a result of the negligence of the appellant and/or as a result of breaches by the appellant of provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 (Vic). The respondent’s claim was brought pursuant to s 134AB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) (‘the Act’) for ‘pain and suffering damages’ as that expression is defined in s 134AB(37) of the Act.[1]
[1]The expression ‘pain and suffering damages’ is defined in s 134AB(37) of the Act to mean ‘damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life or loss of enjoyment of life’.

On 28 August 2013, the respondent’s proceeding came on for hearing in the County Court before a judge and jury of six. At the commencement of the trial, the appellant admitted liability, with the result that the sole issue at trial was the assessment of the respondent’s pain and suffering damages. After a trial lasting five days, the jury assessed the respondent’s damages in the sum of $385,000. Judgment

was then entered for the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Geelong Leather Pty Ltd v Delaney and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] VSCA 98
Decision Date: 23 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Geelong Leather Pty Ltd sought to appeal a decision made in a jury trial, focusing on the damages awarded for pain and suffering. The original trial resulted in a verdict against Geelong Leather, and the jury subsequently awarded damages. The appeal was brought before the court to challenge the jury’s assessment of pain and suffering damages. The legal issues under consideration were whether the jury's assessment of pain and suffering damages was not open on the evidence and whether it was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the relevance of damages awarded in other cases was examined.

The court found that the jury's assessment of pain and suffering damages was indeed open on the evidence provided. The court examined the evidence thoroughly and concluded that the jury's decision was within the bounds of what could reasonably be inferred from the presented facts. The court further determined that the damages awarded were not manifestly excessive. The reasoning included a comparison with damages awarded in other similar cases, which supported the notion that the award was neither unreasonable nor disproportionate. The court held that the jury had exercised its discretion appropriately and that the award was justified based on the evidence and circumstances of the case.

As a result of the court's reasoning, the appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the jury’s original decision on pain and suffering damages, finding no basis for overturning the verdict. The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal and maintained the jury’s assessment of damages as it stood.

Orders