Jane EDQUIST v David James William Morewood

This case involved an appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory from a decision of the Master of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant, Jane Edquist, sought to challenge the Master's assessment of damages awarded to the respondent, David James William Morewood.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Master erred in his assessment of damages by: (1) failing to adequately account for the plaintiff's decision not to undergo surgery, and (2) mischaracterising the impact of the injuries on the plaintiff's life and enjoyment of life, particularly in light of the plaintiff's own description of his post-accident state. The appellant also contended that if the Master was influenced by the plaintiff's demeanour, this should have been expressly stated in the judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judges reasoned that the plaintiff's decision not to undergo surgery was based on valid reasons and did not, in itself, warrant a reduction in damages or a finding of contributory fault. Regarding the impact of the injuries, the court found that the Master was entitled to infer the "immense" impact on the plaintiff's enjoyment of life, even if the plaintiff used less emphatic language, given the stark contrast between his pre-accident achievements as an elite athlete and his post-accident limitations. The court also held that the Master's consideration of the plaintiff's demeanour was implicit in his findings and did not constitute an error of law, as demeanour can subtly influence factual assessments. The court affirmed the Master's discretionary judgment in assessing damages, acknowledging it was a high award but not one that warranted appellate interference.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.