Iacopetta v Woolworths Limited

[2015] NSWCA 87

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Iacopetta v Woolworths Limited [2015] NSWCA 87
Hearing dates:	27 March 2015
Decision date:	27 March 2015
Before:	Beazley ACJ; Basten JA; Simpson J
Decision:	The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Catchwords:	TORTS – no question of principle – no grounds to disturb trial judge’s findings on credit
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Sharyn Ann Iacopetta (Appellant) Woolworths Limited (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: R Sheldon SC; P Khandhar (Appellant) J Sexton SC; J Catsanos (Respondent) Solicitors: Brydens Compensation Lawyers (Appellant) HBA Legal Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2014/60378
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: District Court Citation: Sharyn Ann Iacopetta v Woolworths Ltd Date of Decision: 31 January 2014 Before: Lakatos SC DCJ File Number(s): 2012/339313

Judgment

1. THE COURT: The Court is of the unanimous opinion that the appeal in this matter should be dismissed. We consider that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle and we give our reasons in short form only.

2. Substantially for the reasons given by the trial judge, we are of the opinion that the essential error that was said to infect his Honour’s reasons, being that contained at [188] of his Honour's reasons, has not been made out.

3. The appellant’s focus on the first phrase of that paragraph failed to address the balance of what his Honour said, namely, that the consensus of the medical opinion was that the plaintiff had “recovered from the effects of the accident”, with the riders which his Honour then nominated, namely, that:

“… she has some bad days, requiring physiotherapy at times and more often painkilling medication. She is able to perform (albeit at a slower pace) most of the tasks, domestic and otherwise, that she could undertake prior to the accident.”

4. His Honour accepted, in that paragraph, that the accident was traumatic, but that the consequential effects are now of somewhat lesser gravity. His Honour's views are supported by the medical opinions.

5. As to economic loss, his Honour was entitled to conclude on the evidence that apart from an occasional day, and a period required to be off work should she have surgery, the appellant continued to have an undiminished earning capacity.

6. As to the claim for domestic assistance, that claim could not stand with the unchallenged findings of his Honour's judgment.

7. This case essentially turned on credit. No basis has been demonstrated for appellant interference with his Honour's comprehensive adverse findings against the appellant and her husband.

8. The order of the Court, therefore, is that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

**********

Decision last updated: 02 April 2015