Kerney v Mead & Anor

The matter of Kerney v Mead & Anor was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Mr Kerney, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The primary issues were the measure of damages for orthopaedic injuries and a psychiatric condition, as well as claims for economic loss, including lost business opportunities. The defendants, Messrs Mead and Anor, contested the quantum of damages claimed by Mr Kerney.

The court was tasked with determining whether Mr Kerney had established his residual earning capacity, and thus, the extent of his economic loss. A key point of contention was the onus of proof in relation to the individual circumstances of the labour market, and whether Mr Kerney had successfully demonstrated that he had lost business opportunities due to his injuries. The court also examined the evidence presented regarding the plaintiff's psychiatric condition and its impact on his ability to work.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that Mr Kerney had not met the required standard of proof to establish his residual earning capacity. The court found that the plaintiff had not adequately demonstrated the specific impact of his orthopaedic injuries and psychiatric condition on his earning capacity, particularly in light of the individual circumstances of the labour market. Furthermore, the court determined that Mr Kerney had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim for lost business opportunities. Consequently, the court reduced the quantum of damages awarded to the plaintiff.

The court ordered that the defendants pay Mr Kerney a reduced amount for his orthopaedic injuries and psychiatric condition, taking into account the findings regarding his residual earning capacity and lost business opportunities. The precise amount of damages awarded was not specified in the text, but it was noted that the reduction was significant. The court's decision highlights the importance of establishing the specific impact of injuries on earning capacity and the need for robust evidence in personal injury claims.