Parker v Hill - [2000] WASCA 272

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: PARKER -v- HILL [2000] WASCA 272

CORAM: MALCOLM CJ
WALLWORK J
MURRAY J

HEARD: 11 APRIL 2000

DELIVERED : 22 SEPTEMBER 2000

FILE NO/S: FUL 159 of 1999

BETWEEN: SHANE ELLIOTT PARKER
Appellant
AND
LINDA JOAN HILL
Respondent

Catchwords:

Damages - Appellant worked in Karratha prior to being injured - Received three return air tickets each year from employer - He cashed them in - He also received subsidised rental - After his accident he lived in Walpole - Whether loss of air fares and subsidised rental should be allowed for in damages

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed
The air fares and subsidised rental were part of appellant's income and their loss was compensable

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr T H Offer
Respondent: Mr K N Allan

Solicitors:

Appellant: Evangel Taylor
Respondent: K N Allan

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bowen v Tutte (1990) ATR 81‑043
Bresatz v Przibilla (1962) 108 CLR 541
Jongen v CSR Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA (Anderson J); Library No 920325; 18 June 1992
Liffen v Watson [1940] 1 KB 556
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1994-1995) 182 CLR 1
Thomas v O'Shea (1989) ATR 80‑251

Case(s) also cited:

Miller v Jennings (1954) 92 CLR 190

MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion this appeal should be allowed for the reasons to be published by Wallwork J with which I agree. It will be necessary for the various heads of damage to be calculated in accordance with those reasons. Hopefully, the calculations can be agreed in the light of the reasons for judgment. If agreement cannot be reached within, say, seven days, the parties should file their respective calculations for the consideration and decision by the Court.
WALLWORK J: The appellant appeals from an award of damages arising from injuries he received on 22 July 1992 in a motor vehicle collision. The appellant was the rider of a motor cycle which collided with a motor vehicle. He was badly injured, mainly in one leg.
At the time he was injured, the appellant was 32 years of age. He was working as a leading hand instrument maker and electrician at Karratha. His employment involved the maintenance of the Hamersley Iron rail line and equipment. He worked in a workshop and along the line in about equal proportions. The work was quite physical and involved electronics, electro‑chemical, hydraulic and other types of work, often in dirty, hot conditions.
I will deal with the grounds of appeal in the order in which they were argued.
The appellant argued grounds 2 and 3 together.
Ground 2 is:
"Having found that the rebate for 'zone allowance' should not be excluded from net income, the learned trial Judge erred in failing to include such rebate in his calculation of net income."
It is apparent from his Honour's reasons that ground 2 is made out and the respondent accepts that it is established.
Ground 3 of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Parker v Hill

Details

AGLC: Parker v Hill [2000] WASCA 272
Case: [2000] WASCA 272
Decision Date: 22 SEPTEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Parker v Hill involved an appeal by the plaintiff, who was injured in a car accident in Karratha, against the decision of the trial judge. The plaintiff, who worked in Karratha prior to the accident, received three return air tickets from his employer each year. He cashed these tickets in and also received subsidised rental from his employer. After his accident, he lived in Walpole. The central issue in the appeal was whether the loss of air fares and the subsidised rental should be taken into account in the assessment of damages. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was the extent to which the loss of the employer-provided air fares and the subsidised rental should be considered in calculating the damages. The plaintiff argued that these benefits should be taken into account as part of the total compensation for the loss of his employment and the impact of the injury on his lifestyle. The defendant contended that these benefits were not properly attributable to the injury and should not be included in the damages. The court had to determine whether these benefits were sufficiently connected to the employment and the injury to be considered in the damages assessment.

The court found that the employer-provided air fares and the subsidised rental were indeed part of the total remuneration package for the plaintiff's employment. The court recognised that these benefits contributed to the plaintiff's overall lifestyle and were directly linked to his employment in Karratha. Consequently, the court held that the loss of these benefits should be considered in the assessment of damages. The court awarded the plaintiff damages that included the value of the air fares and the subsidised rental, reflecting their importance in the overall compensation for the injury and its impact on the plaintiff's life.

The final orders of the court were that the damages awarded to the plaintiff should include the value of the three return air tickets and the value of the subsidised rental, reflecting the loss of these benefits due to the injury and the consequent change in the plaintiff's living circumstances.

Orders