SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Oliver v Roberts |
Citation: | [2018] ACTCA 35 |
Hearing Date: | 7 August 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 24 August 2018 |
Reasons Date: | 24 August 2018 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Loukas-Karlsson and Charlesworth JJ |
Decision: | The appeal is allowed in part. See [108]–[109]. |
Catchwords: | DAMAGES – assessment of damages – future economic loss – damages for future care – assessment of a future economic loss buffer using rough calculation – incorrect multiplier used in rough calculation – basis of future care award unclear – inadequate reasons – whether appropriate to reduce award for future care for contingencies |
Cases Cited: | Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr [2012] NSWCA 13; 83 NSWLR 302 Australian Capital Territory v Crowley [2012] ACTCA 52; 7 ACTLR 142 |
Parties: | Andrew Robert Oliver (Appellant) Caroline Roberts (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Dr A Morrisson SC (Appellant) Mr I Bradfield (Appellant) Mr K Rewell SC (Respondent) Mr D Crowe (Respondent) |
| Solicitors MTM Legal (Appellant) Moray and Agnew (Respondent) | |
File Number: | ACTCA 66 of 2017 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Supreme Court of the ACT Before: Walmsley AJ Date of Decision: 12 December 2017 Case Title: Oliver v Roberts Citation: [2017] ACTSC 360 Court File Number(s): SCC 439 of 2013 |
THE COURT:
Background to the appeal
On 27 August 2010, the appellant sustained traumatic brain injury (TBI) in a motor vehicle accident. The respondent admitted liability.
At the time of the accident, the appellant was a university student who was studying for a degree in industrial design. He worked part-time as a labourer.
At the time of the hearing, the appellant was 27 years old. He enjoyed a reasonable social life and participated in physical activities requiring physical dexterity and fitness, including the French training discipline of parkour. He worked part-time at Questacon.
Walmsley AJ (the primary judge) assessed the appellant’s damages. During the proceedings, the main issue was the extent, if any, to which the appellant continued to suffer from cognitive impairment associated with the TBI caused by the accident.
On 12 December 2017, the primary judge gave judgment for the appellant in the sum of $1,084,575.00, including a buffer of $200,000.00 for future economic loss, $28,000.00 for future superannuation loss, $100,000.00 for a future…
Continue reading Oliver v Roberts
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Oliver v Roberts [2018] ACTCA 35
- Case
- [2018] ACTCA 35
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal required the Court of Appeal to determine whether the trial judge erred in their assessment of damages for future economic loss, particularly concerning the calculation of a future economic loss buffer. Key questions included whether the trial judge provided adequate reasons for the basis of the future care award and whether it was permissible to reduce this award for contingencies, given the method of calculation employed.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's reasons for the future care award were inadequate, noting that the basis for the award was unclear. Specifically, the court observed that an incorrect multiplier appeared to have been used in a "rough calculation" for the future economic loss buffer. This lack of clarity and the apparent error in calculation meant the court could not be satisfied that the award was properly assessed. The court also considered whether it was appropriate to reduce the award for future care for contingencies, a point that was intrinsically linked to the clarity and basis of the initial calculation.
The appeal was allowed in part.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is allowed in part. See [108]–[109].
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.