Longhurst v Hunt

The plaintiff, Mr. Longhurst, brought proceedings against the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Hunt, following a motor vehicle accident. The dispute concerned the assessment of damages, specifically the aggregation of non-economic loss arising from both psychological and physical injuries. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were: (1) the admissibility of certain witness statements under section 135 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW); (2) the proper interpretation and application of section 133(3) of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW) concerning the assessment of non-economic loss, particularly whether separate medical assessment certificates for psychological/psychiatric injury and physical injuries could be aggregated; and (3) the overall assessment of damages.

The majority of the Court (Sheller and Santow JJA) found that the trial judge had erred in aggregating the impairment assessments from separate medical assessment certificates for psychological and physical injuries. They held that section 133(3) of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* required a single assessment of the degree of permanent impairment for the purposes of determining non-economic loss, rather than a summation of separate assessments. The court also addressed the admissibility of witness statements, finding that the trial judge had not erred in admitting them. Stein AJA dissented on the interpretation of section 133(3).

The appeal was allowed, and the verdict of $380,500 was set aside. The parties were directed to bring in short minutes of order to reflect the majority's reasoning regarding the amount of the verdict. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the trial, while each party was to bear their own costs of the appeal. The defendants' cross-appeal was dismissed with costs.