HUGHES -v- CORNWALL [2001] WASCA 157

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 157
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	FUL:25/2000	Heard:	12 OCTOBER 2000
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ PIDGEON J MURRAY J	Delivered:	21/05/01
No of pages:	49	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Subject to agreed reduction in damages, appeal dismissed Cross-appeal allowed and damages for past economic loss to date of trial increased and award made for future loss of earning capacity
PDF Version

Parties:	ANTHONY HOWARD HUGHES KAREN DIANN CORNWALL
Catchwords:	Damages Measure and remoteness of damages in actions for tort Road accident cases General damages Assessment of percentage of "most extreme case"
Legislation:	Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA), s 3C
Case References:	Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232 Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 249 Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 March v Stramare (E & M H) Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 Southgate v Waterford (1990) 21 NSWLR 427 Wylde v 'Arriaza, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970359; 23 July 1997 Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : HUGHES -v- CORNWALL [2001] WASCA 157 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

PIDGEON J

MURRAY J

HEARD : 12 OCTOBER 2000 DELIVERED : 21 MAY 2001 FILE NO/S : FUL 25 of 2000 BETWEEN : ANTHONY HOWARD HUGHES

Appellant (Defendant)

AND

KAREN DIANN CORNWALL

Respondent (Plaintiff)

Catchwords:

Damages - Measure and remoteness of damages in actions for tort - Road accident cases - General damages - Assessment of percentage of "most extreme case"

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA), s 3C

(Page 2)

Result:

Subject to agreed reduction in damages, appeal dismissed

Cross-appeal allowed and damages for past economic loss to date of trial increased and award made for future loss of earning capacity

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant (Defendant) : Mr J R Brooksby

Respondent (Plaintiff) : Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Appellant (Defendant) : Greenland Brooksby

Respondent (Plaintiff) : Simon Walters

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 249
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
March v Stramare (E & M H) Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Southgate v Waterford (1990) 21 NSWLR 427
Wylde v 'Arriaza, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970359; 23 July 1997

Case(s) also cited:

Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1

(Page 3)

1 MALCOLM CJ: This was an appeal against a judgment of Groves DCJ in the District Court dated 22 February 2000 by which the learned Judge awarded the respondent $24,980.36 damages for negligence as a result of personal injuries suffered by the respondent in a motor vehicle accident on 21 March…

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 Hughes v Cornwall

Details

AGLC: Hughes v Cornwall [2001] WASCA 157
Case: [2001] WASCA 157
Decision Date: 21 MAY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hughes v Cornwall, the plaintiff sought damages from the defendant following a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's negligence caused the accident, which resulted in significant injuries to the plaintiff. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues revolved around the measure of damages, specifically the general damages for pain and suffering, and the remoteness of damages. The court had to determine the appropriate percentage of "most extreme case" for assessing the plaintiff's general damages and whether the damages claimed were too remote.

The court began by considering the appropriate percentage of "most extreme case" for the assessment of the plaintiff's general damages. It was determined that the appropriate percentage was 38%, which was then applied to the general damages claimed by the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were severe, and the appropriate assessment of damages for pain and suffering was accordingly high. However, the court also considered the remoteness of the damages claimed, specifically the plaintiff's claim for future loss of earning capacity. The court found that the evidence provided was sufficient to support the claim for future loss of earning capacity, and an award was made in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant's appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff's cross-appeal was allowed, resulting in an increase in damages for past economic loss and an award for future loss of earning capacity.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed subject to an agreed reduction in damages. The cross-appeal was allowed, and the damages for past economic loss were increased to date of trial. Additionally, an award was made for future loss of earning capacity, as the court found that the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to support this claim. The case highlights the importance of providing sufficient evidence when claiming damages in personal injury cases, and the need for careful consideration of the measure and remoteness of damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

Subject to agreed reduction in damages, appeal dismissed

Cross-appeal allowed and damages for past economic loss to date of trial increased and award made for future loss of earning capacity

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.