Norris v Routley

In *Norris v Routley*, the appellant, the wife of the deceased, appealed a decision concerning the quantification of damages awarded under the *Compensation to Relatives Act 1897* (NSW) following the respondent doctor's admission of liability for the deceased's death. The primary dispute revolved around the calculation of the deceased's consumption of household income and the value of his domestic services.

The appeal raised several legal issues. Firstly, the court had to determine whether the trial judge erred in adopting the standard consumption percentages outlined in Luntz's *Assessment of Damages* despite evidence suggesting the deceased had frugal consumption habits and that household income was projected to increase. Secondly, the court considered whether the value of the deceased's domestic services should be discounted to reflect that some services were performed for his own benefit, particularly after his sons ceased to be dependent. Finally, the court addressed the appellant's application to lead further evidence on appeal, specifically revised consumption percentages, and whether this evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial and if its admission would cause prejudice.

The Court of Appeal, comprising McColl, Gleeson, and Payne JJA, dismissed the appellant's motion to lead further evidence, finding that the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial and that its admission would likely cause prejudice. The court also dismissed the appeal itself. The reasoning focused on the discretionary nature of the trial judge's assessment of damages and the appellant's failure to demonstrate actual error in the application of the Luntz standard percentages or in the valuation of domestic services. The court upheld the trial judge's approach, finding no basis to interfere with the discretionary judgment made.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The appellant's application for leave to cross-appeal was refused, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs for that application.