Lawson v Jones - [1992] QCA 387

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1992] QCA 387
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 118 of 1992

BEVERLEY CLAIR LAWSON

Respondent

ALAN PATRICK JONES

Appellant

Mr Justice Davies
Mr Justice McPherson
Mr Justice Moynihan
Judgment of the Court delivered the
day of , 1992

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

No. 118 of 1992

Before the Court of Appeal

Mr Justice Davies
Mr Justice McPherson
Mr Justice Moynihan

BETWEEN:

BEVERLEY CLAIR LAWSON

Respondent

- and -

ALAN PATRICK JONES

Appellant

JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Delivered the day of , 1992

MINUTE OF ORDER:

CATCHWORDS: Appeal from award of damages to respondent injured in motor vehicle accident - whether award for past and future care largely provided by respondent's mother justified

Counsel:

Solicitors:

McInnes Wilson & Jenson
Solicitors for the Appellant

Hearing dates: Dempseys

Solicitors for the Respondent

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

No. 118 of 1992

Before the Court of Appeal

Mr Justice Davies
Mr Justice McPherson
Mr Justice Moynihan

BETWEEN:

BEVERLEY CLAIR LAWSON

(Plaintiff)

Respondent

- and -

ALAN PATRICK JONES

(Defendant)

Appellant

JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Delivered the day of , 1992

The respondent obtained judgment for $771,945.00 damages for personal injuries suffered

in a motor vehicle accident. This is an appeal against the quantum of those damages. In the event

the appeal was argued on the basis that the past and present economic loss and cost of care

components of the award were unsustainably high with the consequence that the award was

excessive.

The respondent was born on 16 September, 1952 and was injured on 14 October, 1988.

The trial took place in May, 1992 with judgment being entered on the 28th of that month.

The trial Judge found that after the accident the respondent felt immediate pain in her lower

back, neck and left arm, and that she has been complaining of "these problems" ever since. By the

time of the trial she was complaining of severe to very severe pain, starting in the left shoulder, working across the back of her neck, up her neck and across the back and over the head to her

forehead. The condition of her left hand was such that she did not, at the time of trial, have any

effective use of it, although the trial Judge found that there was "at least an even chance" that this

condition would be completely alleviated by treatment which was proposed.

The respondent has been examined by a wide spectrum of numerous medical practitioners

and there was a great variety of opinions in evidence as to the cause of her complaints and their

implications. It is sufficient for present purposes to say that the trial Judge resolved all such issues in

the respondent's favour.

The trial Judge accepted the respondent as "an honest witness with a personality

predisposed to make the most of her problems and to rationalise in areas in which she might appear

to be in difficulties."…

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 Lawson v Jones

Details

AGLC: Lawson v Jones [1992] QCA 387
Case: [1992] QCA 387
Decision Date: 13/11/1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lawson v. Jones, the Court of Appeal reviewed the judgment in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where Beverley Clair Lawson (the respondent) sued Alan Patrick Jones (the appellant) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14 October 1988. The trial judge awarded the respondent $771,945.00 in damages for personal injuries. The appellant appealed, arguing that the award for past and future care was excessively high. The appeal focused on whether the trial judge's assessment of economic loss and the cost of care was justifiable.

The trial judge found that the respondent had sustained permanent injuries that rendered her unemployable and required ongoing care. The judge awarded damages for economic loss, past care, and future care. The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence and found that while the respondent's injuries were genuine and her pain was severe, the award for economic loss and care costs was unsustainable. The trial judge had accepted the respondent's claims at face value without critically evaluating the necessity and proportionality of the care provided. The Court held that the award for past care should be reduced to $20,000, and for future care to $85,000, along with an interest award of $3,600. Consequently, the Court set aside the original judgment and entered a new judgment for $545,845, while maintaining the original order for costs.

Orders