Monement v Faux

The case of Monement v Faux involved the plaintiff, Monement, who suffered significant injuries in a motor vehicle accident for which the defendant, Faux, admitted liability. The plaintiff sustained a wide range of injuries, including head and facial fractures, spinal and limb fractures, multiple pelvic fractures, an ulna nerve injury, an artery laceration, organ lacerations, and bruising. The dispute centred around the assessment of damages for the plaintiff's injuries, which included medical and hospital expenses, loss of earnings and earning capacity, non-pecuniary damages for loss of amenities or capacity for enjoyment, and the costs associated with the litigation process.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate measure and assessment of damages for the plaintiff's injuries and the allocation of costs between the parties. The court had to determine the extent of the plaintiff's medical and hospital expenses, the loss of earnings and earning capacity due to the plaintiff's inability to work, the non-pecuniary damages for the loss of amenities and capacity for enjoyment, and the costs of the litigation. The court also needed to decide on the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties, particularly whether the plaintiff should bear the costs of the defendant's offers of compromise that exceeded the final award of damages.

The court assessed the plaintiff's damages based on the severity and impact of the injuries sustained. It considered the medical and hospital expenses incurred by the plaintiff, the loss of earnings and earning capacity due to the plaintiff's inability to work, and the non-pecuniary damages for the loss of amenities and capacity for enjoyment. The court awarded the plaintiff $392,708.04 in damages. Regarding the costs, the court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to costs on the standard basis up until the date of the second offer by the defendant, after which the plaintiff would bear the defendant's costs on the standard basis. This decision was based on the defendant's offers of compromise that were in excess of the final award of damages.

The final orders of the court included a judgment for the plaintiff for $392,708.04, with the second defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on the standard basis until 2 March 2005, and thereafter, the plaintiff was to pay the second defendant's costs on the standard basis. This allocation of costs was determined based on the defendant's offers of compromise that exceeded the final award of damages.