SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Howard v Aikman |
Citation: | [2015] ACTCA 64 |
Hearing Date: | 9 February 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 18 December 2015 |
Before: | Refshauge, Penfold and Katzmann JJ |
Decision: | 1. The appeal be allowed. 2. The cross-appeal be dismissed. 3. The judgment of Master Harper dated 6 March 2014 be set aside. 4. Within 28 days, the parties bring in short minutes of order giving effect to these reasons. 5. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs unless, within 28 days, either party notifies the court and the other party that it wishes to make submissions about the costs order. 6. The parties have liberty to apply on 5 days notice. |
Catchwords: | DAMAGES — personal injury — appeal and cross-appeal from Master –– assessment of lost earning capacity — whether error in award for six-month delay in respondent entering the workforce — whether error in figure for past loss of earning capacity — whether future loss of earning capacity inadequate or excessive |
Legislation Cited: | Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 56(1), 76, 143,144, 145 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 1619 |
Cases Cited: | Commonwealth Shipping Representative v Penninsular & Oriental Branch Service [1923] AC 191 Davies v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries [1942] AC 601 Harper v Bangalow Motors Pty Ltd (unreported, NSWCA, 24 July 1990) Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995)184 CLR 485 |
Texts Cited: | Heydon JD, Cross on Evidence (10th ed, LexisNexis Butterworths Australia), 2015 |
Parties: | Stephen Michael Howard (Appellant) Amos Aikman (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr R L Crowe SC (Appellant) Mr G Stretton SC with Mr Bradfield (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Sparke Helmore (Appellant) Colquhoun Murphy (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 14 of 2014 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Master Harper Date of Decision: 6 March 2014 Case Title: Amos Aikman v Stephen Michael Howard Citation: [2014] ACTSC 35 |
THE COURT
Background
At about 8.20 pm on 13 September 2006 there was a motor vehicle accident in the grounds of the Australian National University. The accident occurred when Stephen Howard made a right hand turn in his Holden Rodeo four-wheel drive…
Continue reading Howard v Aikman
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Howard v Aikman [2015] ACTCA 64
- Case
- [2015] ACTCA 64
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Master had erred in his assessment of the respondent's lost earning capacity. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the Master's finding regarding the six-month delay in the respondent commencing employment was erroneous, and whether the figure awarded for past loss of earning capacity was incorrect. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the award for future loss of earning capacity was either inadequate or excessive.
The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master had erred in his assessment of the damages. Consequently, the cross-appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of Master Harper dated 6 March 2014 was set aside. The Court ordered that within 28 days, the parties were to bring in short minutes of order giving effect to the Court's reasons. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs, unless within 28 days either party notified the Court and the other party of their wish to make submissions regarding the costs order. The parties were granted liberty to apply on 5 days' notice.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The cross-appeal be dismissed.
3. The judgment of Master Harper dated 6 March 2014 be set aside.
4. Within 28 days, the parties bring in short minutes of order giving effect to these reasons.
5. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs unless, within 28 days, either party notifies the court and the other party that it wishes to make submissions about the costs order.
6. The parties have liberty to apply on 5 days notice.
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.