Green Triangle Bark Processors Pty Ltd v Parker - [2000] VSCA 22

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 5639 of 1999

GREEN TRIANGLE BARK PROCESSORS PTY. LTD.

Appellant

BRADLEY PARKER

Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BUCHANAN and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 February 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 February 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 22

---

Damages – Jury’s award – Assessment – Pain and suffering – Pecuniary loss – Whether “manifestly excessive” – Test to be applied.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Appellant

Mr. R.H. Gillies Q.C. and

Mr. J.F. Perry

Middletons Moore & Bevins

For the Respondent

Mr. A. W. Adams Q.C. and Mr. T.J. Seccull

Maurice Blackburn & Co.

WINNEKE, P.:

I will invite Chernov, J.A. to give the first judgment in this appeal.

CHERNOV, J.A.:

On 22 March 1996, a backhoe which the respondent, whom I shall call "the plaintiff", was operating in the course of his employment with the appellant, tipped over and fell on him fracturing his pelvis and sacrum, damaging various nerve ends and causing other injuries. The plaintiff brought this proceeding against the appellant claiming that the accident and his injuries and the resultant loss and damage he suffered were caused by the appellant's negligence and breach of other duties. The appellant did not dispute liability and the matter proceeded before a judge and jury by way of assessment of the plaintiff's damages.

The plaintiff was born on 15 November 1978 and at the time of the accident was aged 17. He had been working for the appellant since he left school in about mid-1995. Before the accident, he was an energetic person who enjoyed working, water skiing, riding motor bikes, mixing with his friends and no doubt engaging in the usual range of activities that are pursued by young people of his age. During his school days, he worked outside school hours, first delivering newspapers and later, products for the local chemist. He obtained employment with the appellant on his own initiative and often worked well over eight hours while only being paid the standard wage. During his time with the appellant, the plaintiff decided that he would like to become a tradesman in the building industry or a pastry chef. Although he attended apprenticeship interviews, they were not fruitful as at the date of the accident. As will be seen later, the evidence established, or at the very least, it was open for the jury to find on the evidence, that the accident left him seriously impaired physically, emotionally and psychologically, depriving him of enjoyment of life including the ability to undertake work which he had every reason to expect he would pursue.

On 19 May 1999, the jury awarded the plaintiff damages of $230,000 for pain and suffering and $517,000 for pecuniary loss and damage. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff accordingly, after taking into account deductions that were agreed upon between the parties and damages by way of interest. This appeal is concerned with the appellant's contention that 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.

Continue reading Green Triangle Bark Processors Pty Ltd v Parker

Details

AGLC: Green Triangle Bark Processors Pty Ltd v Parker [2000] VSCA 22
Case: [2000] VSCA 22
Decision Date: 15 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Green Triangle Bark Processors Pty Ltd v Parker, the dispute centred around the quantum of damages awarded to the plaintiff, Parker, following an injury sustained at work. The Federal Circuit Court was tasked with reviewing the jury’s award and determining whether it was “manifestly excessive.” The plaintiff had suffered significant injuries resulting in both pain and suffering as well as pecuniary loss. The primary issue for the court was to assess the appropriateness of the jury's damages award under the applicable legal framework.

The court examined the principles governing the assessment of damages, particularly focusing on the test for determining whether the award was “manifestly excessive.” It considered the evidence presented regarding the plaintiff’s pain and suffering, the nature and extent of his injuries, and the impact on his ability to work. The court also reviewed the components of the pecuniary loss, including lost wages and future earning capacity. In making its determination, the court applied the relevant legal tests, ensuring that the award was neither overly generous nor unfairly low.

Upon reviewing the evidence and applying the relevant legal tests, the court found that the jury's award was not “manifestly excessive.” It concluded that the damages awarded were reasonable and proportionate to the injuries and their consequences. The court emphasised the importance of allowing the jury to assess the specific circumstances of the case, provided their decision was within a range of reasonableness. The court’s decision upheld the jury’s award, affirming that it did not exceed what was just and appropriate under the circumstances.

Orders