McDONALD -v- MOORE [2003] WASCA 21
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 21 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:51/2002 | 16 OCTOBER 2002 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J ANDERSON J TEMPLEMAN J | 26/02/03 | |
| 30 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Damages reduced from $882,885 to $738,199 | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DONALD ALEXANDER McDONALD PATRICIA ELSPETH MOORE |
Catchwords: | Negligence Personal injuries Motor vehicle accident Assessment of damages Whether assessment took sufficient account of problems which were treatable Adequacy of reasons Whether assessment proceeded on correct factual foundation Whether allowance for loss of amenities excessive Whether amounts for past and future earning capacity excessive Relevance of payments by insurer under loss of income policy |
Legislation: | Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943, s 3C(2), s 3C(3) |
Case References: | Bradburn v Great Western Railway Co (1874) LR 10 Exch 1 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Scully (2000) 169 ALR 459 Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 377 Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340 Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 249 McCamley v Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 963 National Insurance Co of New Zealand v Espagne (1961) 105 CLR 569 Wylde v Aristondo-Arriaza, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970359; 23 July 1997 Fane v Smart [2002] WASCA 62 Gamser v Nominal Defendant (1977) 136 CLR 145 Gibson v Smith, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970317; 19 June 1997 Haines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60 Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 138 Lloyd v Faraone (1989) WAR 154 Osborne & Co v Anderson [1905] VLR 427 SGIC v Hitchcock, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970089; 11 March 1997 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : McDONALD -v- MOORE [2003] WASCA 21 CORAM : MURRAY J
- ANDERSON J
TEMPLEMAN J
- Appellant (Defendant)
AND
PATRICIA ELSPETH MOORE
Respondent (Plaintiff)
Catchwords:
Negligence - Personal injuries - Motor vehicle accident - Assessment of damages - Whether assessment took sufficient account of problems which were treatable - Adequacy of reasons - Whether assessment proceeded on correct factual foundation - Whether allowance for loss of amenities excessive - Whether amounts for past and future earning capacity excessive - Relevance of payments by insurer under loss of income policy
Legislation:
Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943, s 3C(2), s 3C(3)
(Page 2)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Damages reduced from $882,885 to $738,199
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant (Defendant) : Mr J G Staude
Respondent (Plaintiff) : Mr T H Offer
Solicitors:
Appellant (Defendant) : John G Staude
Respondent (Plaintiff) : Trewin Norman & Co
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bradburn v Great Western Railway Co (1874) LR 10 Exch 1
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Scully (2000) 169 ALR 459
Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies…
Continue reading McDonald v Moore
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- McDonald v Moore [2003] WASCA 21
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 21
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of McDonald v Moore, the plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by the defendant. The dispute centred on the assessment of damages awarded to the plaintiff, specifically the amounts awarded for past and future loss of amenities and earning capacity. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia, which was then appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The court was required to determine whether the primary judge had adequately considered the treatable aspects of the plaintiff's injuries in the damages assessment, and if the assessment was based on a correct factual foundation. Further, the court had to consider whether the amounts awarded for loss of amenities and earning capacity were excessive, and if the payments made by the defendant's insurer under a loss of income policy were relevant to the damages calculation.
The court found that the primary judge's reasons did not sufficiently address the treatable aspects of the plaintiff's injuries, and the assessment was not based on a correct factual foundation. The court also held that the amounts awarded for loss of amenities and earning capacity were excessive, and the payments made under the loss of income policy were relevant to the damages calculation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the damages were reduced from $882,885 to $738,199.
No further orders were made by the court.
The court was required to determine whether the primary judge had adequately considered the treatable aspects of the plaintiff's injuries in the damages assessment, and if the assessment was based on a correct factual foundation. Further, the court had to consider whether the amounts awarded for loss of amenities and earning capacity were excessive, and if the payments made by the defendant's insurer under a loss of income policy were relevant to the damages calculation.
The court found that the primary judge's reasons did not sufficiently address the treatable aspects of the plaintiff's injuries, and the assessment was not based on a correct factual foundation. The court also held that the amounts awarded for loss of amenities and earning capacity were excessive, and the payments made under the loss of income policy were relevant to the damages calculation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the damages were reduced from $882,885 to $738,199.
No further orders were made by the court.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Damages reduced from $882,885 to $738,199
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
Full text does not contain this section.