State Government Insurance Commission v Hitchcock, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970089; 11 March 1997
MALCOLM CJ: This is an appeal against a judgment of Fenbury DCJ in the District Court on 21 September 1999 by which the learned Judge ordered that the appellant pay to the respondent damages in the sum of $200,902.45, costs to be taxed. The award was made on account of damages for personal injury suffered by the applicant in a motor vehicle accident on 9 October 1992, when the motor cycle the appellant was driving and a four‑wheel drive vehicle driven by the respondent collided head‑on. They were both travelling in opposite directions on a country dirt road in daylight. Liability was admitted. The appellant conceded that he was guilty of contributory negligence and the parties agreed that they were both negligent and that liability should be apportioned on the basis of equal responsibility. The appellant suffered serious injury in the accident, namely, a compound fracture of the right distal tibia extending into the ankle joint, with an associated fracture of the distal fibula on the same side.
In summary, the damages were assessed as follows:
General damages – loss of amenities $55,000.00
Past loss of earning capacity $120,000.00
Loss of past superannuation benefits $9,228.00
Interest on past loss $24,984.00
Future loss of economic capacity $170,534.00
Loss of…
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 Kember v Thackrah
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Kember v Thackrah [2000] WASCA 198
Case
[2000] WASCA 198
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Kember v Thackrah involves the plaintiff, Kember, who brought an action against Thackrah for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff sought damages for future economic loss, which included a discount for contingencies and the impact of superannuation benefits on the discount rate. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the discount rate applied to future economic loss should consider the plaintiff's superannuation benefits and the appropriate rate at which to discount future economic loss, taking into account the plaintiff's superannuation benefits.
The court held that the discount rate for future economic loss should indeed consider the plaintiff's superannuation benefits, as they would mitigate the impact of the loss. The court referenced established jurisprudence, which had previously acknowledged that superannuation benefits should be considered when calculating the discount rate. The court found that the lower primary judge had erred in not taking the superannuation benefits into account when determining the discount rate. The court also clarified the appropriate discount rate, concluding that a rate of 4% was more appropriate than the 6% used by the primary judge, given the plaintiff's superannuation benefits. Consequently, the court increased the award for future economic loss to reflect the correct discount rate.
The court's decision led to an increase in the damages awarded to the plaintiff for future economic loss. The increase was calculated based on the correct discount rate, which took into account the plaintiff's superannuation benefits. The court's judgment emphasised the importance of accurately assessing the discount rate in personal injury cases, particularly when superannuation benefits are involved. The final orders of the court included an increased award for future economic loss, reflecting the correct discount rate.