Miller v Jennings

Miller v Jennings concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia regarding the assessment of damages for personal injury. The appellant, Mr. Miller, suffered a permanent brain injury as a result of a motor vehicle collision caused by the respondent's negligence. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the general damages awarded by the trial judge.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the general damages awarded by the trial judge were SO inadequate as to justify an appellate court's intervention. Specifically, the court had to determine if the compensation assessed was SO low that it fell outside the bounds of what a reasonable discretionary judgment could adopt, considering the appellant's permanent disabilities, including involuntary twitching, loss of smell and taste, psychological deterioration, memory impairment, and reduced earning capacity.

Dixon C.J. and Kitto J., in their joint judgment, affirmed the principle that an appellate court should only interfere with a damages assessment if it is SO inadequate or unreasonable as to be a wholly erroneous estimate. They found that while the awarded sum of £2,700 in general damages was not high, it could not be considered SO inadequate as to warrant interference. They reasoned that the trial judge had conducted a full and careful examination of the facts, including the appellant's occupational prospects and domestic life, and that the assessment represented an informed judgment, even if they might have awarded a greater sum themselves. McTiernan J. dissented, finding the award of £2,700 to be SO inadequate that it was not reasonably commensurate with the appellant's injuries and detriment, and proposed an increase of £1,000.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.