Glen v Sullivan

The appeal in *Glen v Sullivan* concerned damages awarded following a motor vehicle accident. The appellant, the plaintiff in the original proceedings, had a pre-existing psychiatric condition. The central dispute revolved around whether the aggravation of this pre-existing condition caused by the accident had ceased by the time of the trial. The primary judge had found that any such aggravation had indeed ceased.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the aggravation of the appellant's pre-existing psychiatric condition had ceased before the trial. This involved considering the application of established legal principles regarding the assessment of damages for aggravation of pre-existing conditions, specifically the principles articulated in *Watts v Rake* and *Purkess v Crittenden*. A key question was whether the onus rested on the defendant to adduce evidence demonstrating that the causal link between the accident and the appellant's continuing disabilities had ended, and if so, whether the defendant had discharged that onus.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the primary judge's findings. It applied the principles from *Watts v Rake* and *Purkess v Crittenden*, which establish that a defendant is liable for the aggravation of a pre-existing condition, but only for the extent of that aggravation. The court held that the onus was on the plaintiff to prove the extent of the aggravation and its continuing impact. The primary judge had been satisfied, on the evidence presented, that the appellant had failed to discharge this onus and that any aggravation attributable to the accident had ceased before the trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.