|
New South Wales |
Case Name: | MacDougal v Mitchell |
Medium Neutral Citation: | [2015] NSWCA 389 |
Hearing Date(s): | 24 November 2015 |
Decision Date: | 9 December 2015 |
Before: | Meagher JA at [1] |
Decision: | 1 Grant leave to appeal. |
Catchwords: | TORTS – assault – damages – whether award of aggravated and/or exemplary damages justified – whether a ‘cushion’ for future economic loss should be awarded - applicable principles – quantum of aggravated and exemplary damages |
Legislation Cited: | Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 3B |
Cases Cited: | Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44 |
Texts Cited: | McGregor on Damages (18th ed 2009, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd) |
Category: | Principal judgment |
Parties: | Leon Peter MacDougal (Applicant) |
Representation: | Counsel: |
File Number(s): | 2015/84875 |
Decision under appeal: | |
Court or Tribunal: | District Court |
Jurisdiction: | Civil |
Date of Decision: | 27 February 2015 |
Before: | Sorby DCJ |
File Number(s): | 2013/385047 |
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
JUDGMENT
MEAGHER JA: I agree with Tobias AJA.
BERGIN CJ in Eq: I agree with Tobias AJA.
TOBIAS AJA: By Summons filed on 27 May 2015, the applicant, Leon Peter MacDougal, seeks the Court’s leave to appeal against the decision of his Honour Judge R A Sorby, of 27 February 2015 wherein it was ordered that there be judgment for the applicant against the respondents in…
Continue reading MacDougal v Mitchell
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- MacDougal v Mitchell [2015] NSWCA 389
- Case
- [2015] NSWCA 389
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the appellate court were whether the original award of damages was justified, specifically concerning the inclusion of aggravated and/or exemplary damages, and whether a "cushion" for future economic loss should have been awarded. The court was required to consider the applicable principles for assessing the quantum of aggravated and exemplary damages.
The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal in part. It set aside the original order and entered judgment for the applicant against both respondents in the sum of $110,500. The respondents were ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the summons for leave to appeal and the appeal, with a provision for a certificate under the *Suitors’ Fund Act 1951* (NSW) if qualified.
Orders
Orders of the court
1 Grant leave to appeal.
2 Appeal allowed in part.
3 Set aside Order 1 made by Judge R A Sorby on 27 February 2015 and in lieu thereof enter judgment for the applicant against both respondents in the sum of $110,500.
4 The respondents to pay the applicant’s costs of the summons for leave to appeal and the appeal but to have, if qualified, a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW).
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: BERGIN CJ
Full text does not contain this section.