JOSHUA O’BRIEN v MICHELLE NOBLE
[2012] ACTCA 13 (24 February 2012)
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – in general and right of appeal – appeal from a final decision of the Master – appeal upheld.
DAMAGES – measure and remoteness of damages in actions in tort – measure of damages for out-of-pocket expenses, past and future loss of earning capacity and provision of gratuitous services – method of evaluation – appeal upheld.
PROCEDURE – court and judges generally – action for damages for negligence – measurement of damages – no reasons for evaluation given – appeal upheld.
Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 s 100
Noble v O’Brien [2010] ACTSC 29
Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Kendirjian v Ayoub [2008] NSWCA 194
Gamser v Nominal Defendant (1977) 136 CLR 145
Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic (2006) 66 NSWLR 186
CSR Readymix (Australia) Pty Ltd v Payne [1998] 2 VR 505
Westrac Equipment Pty Ltd v King [2004] WASCA 188
Sherwood v Guneser (1992) 110 FLR 459
Fry v McGufficke [1998] ACTSC 20
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon (2005) 79 ALJR 1816
ON APPEAL FROM THE MASTER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
No. ACTCA 13 of 2010
No. SC 218 of 2007
Judges: Refshauge, Penfold and North JJ
Australian Capital Territory Court of Appeal
Date: 24 February 2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. ACTCA 13 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) No. SC 218 of 2007
COURT OF APPEAL )
ON APPEAL FROM THE MASTER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:JOSHUA O’BRIEN
Appellant
AND:MICHELLE NOBLE
Respondent
ORDER
Judge: Refshauge, Penfold and North JJ
Date: 24 February 2012
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be upheld.
The matter be referred to the Master for a re-trial limited to the assessment of the respondent’s damages in respect of:
(a) future out-of-pocket expenses;
(b) past and future loss of earning capacity; and
(c) the claims, past and future, under Griffiths v Kerkemeyer and s 100 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT).
The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. ACTCA 13 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) No. SC 218 of 2007
COURT OF APPEAL )
ON APPEAL FROM THE MASTER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:JOSHUA O’BRIEN
Appellant
AND:MICHELLE NOBLE
Respondent
Judge: Refshauge, Penfold and North JJ
Date: 24 February 2012
Place: Canberra
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
Introduction
Before the Court is an appeal by Joshua O’Brien against a decision of Master Harper (Noble v O’Brien [2010] ACTSC 29) awarding damages for negligently-caused personal injury to the respondent, Michelle Noble, arising out of a motor vehicle accident involving the appellant and the respondent.
The heads of damage the subject of this appeal are the Master’s awards for:
(a)the respondent’s future out-of-pocket…
Continue reading O'Brien v Noble
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- O'Brien v Noble [2012] ACTCA 13
- Case
- [2012] ACTCA 13
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the Master's evaluation of damages was correct, particularly in light of the absence of reasons for that evaluation, and whether the appeal from the Master's decision should be upheld.
The Court upheld the appeal. While the provided text does not detail the specific reasoning or legal principles applied by the Court in reaching its decision, it indicates that the appeal from the Master's final decision was successful. The outcome suggests that the Master's assessment of damages was found to be erroneous, leading to the appeal being upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be upheld.
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.