Keith v Gal

The appeal in *Keith v Gal* concerned a dispute over damages for personal injuries. The appellant, Mr Keith, appealed against orders made by O'Toole DCJ in the District Court. The central issue on appeal was whether the primary judge had provided adequate reasons for his decision regarding the assessment of damages.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge's reasons for judgment were seriously deficient, particularly in light of limited cross-examination and the need to resolve factual issues arising from both lay and expert evidence. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the primary judge had adequately addressed the question of whether pre-existing injuries were the cause of the appellant's retirement, a critical factor in the assessment of damages where liability had been admitted.

Emmett and Gleeson JJA, with whom Simpson J agreed, found that the primary judge's reasoning was indeed seriously deficient. They concluded that the failure to adequately resolve the factual disputes, particularly concerning the impact of pre-existing conditions on the appellant's retirement, meant that a new trial was required. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous orders, and remitted the matter to the District Court for a new trial on the issue of damages. The costs of the first trial were ordered to abide the event of the second trial, and the respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.