Nguyen & Anor v Nguyen

The appeal in *Nguyen & Anor v Nguyen* concerned the ability of a widower to recover damages for the loss of his wife's domestic services. The appellants, represented by Mr. C.G.S.L. Jensen, argued that the prevailing Queensland law, which required the replacement of the wife's services with a paid housekeeper to permit recovery, led to an unjust and artificial result. They contended that this rule unfairly disadvantaged individuals who, due to grief or financial constraints, were unable to hire paid help, thereby denying them legal relief.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the decision in *Seymour v British Paints* and its progeny, which established the requirement of engaging a paid replacement housekeeper for recovery of damages for loss of domestic services, was correctly decided. The appellants argued that this rule had been widely rejected in Australian states and the United Kingdom, citing cases such as *Doody v Federation Insurance*, *Cornish v Watson*, and *Swan v Williams (Demolition) Pty Ltd*. They also referred to *Hay v Hughes* as establishing the rule for which they contended.

The appellants' submission was that the law should not measure damages by reference to the use to which the injured party proposes to put them. They adopted the dissenting reasoning of Gibbs J in *Seymour v British Paints*, who stated that evidence of a husband's intention not to replace his wife's services merely indicated his willingness to use his own time and labour, rather than expending money. Gibbs J further noted that the proposed use of damages was irrelevant to their assessment. This principle, the appellants argued, was also reflected in *Naum's case*.