Parker v Wish Designs Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 36 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Parker v Wish Designs Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 401
Hearing dates:5/09/2014
Decision date: 24 November 2014
Before: Emmett JA at [1];
Tobias AJA at [54]
Decision:

Appeal be dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: DAMAGES - measure of damages in actions for tort - appellant suffered injury during the course of his employment and incurred a loss in working capacity - whether the trial judge erred in fixing the appellant's damages for past economic loss by reference to the mathematical difference between his earnings before and after his injury - whether the trial judge had proper regard to the appellant's loss of economic capacity or made a finding to that effect - whether the approach of the trial judge was consistent with the manner in which the appellant's claim was advanced - whether the trial judge made the findings necessary to support the appellant's case on appeal
Legislation Cited: District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 127
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 46A, 75A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 15.12 - 15.14
Cases Cited: Morvatjou v Moradkhani [2013] NSWCA 157
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Bradley Parker (Appellant)
Wish Designs Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
R Sheldon SC with I Ryan (Appellant)
J Hatzistergos with S Lees (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Brydens Law Office (Appellant)
Stephen Lee Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s):2013/374172
Publication restriction:Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Jurisdiction:
9101
Date of Decision:
2013-11-14 00:00:00
Before:
Williams DCJ
File Number(s):
2013/20076

Judgment

  1. EMMETT JA: The appellant, Mr Bradley Parker, has appealed from an assessment of damages for injuries sustained by him in the course of his employment by the respondent, Wish Designs Pty Ltd (Wish Designs). Mr Parker says that the damages awarded to him in the District Court are inadequate and that the reasons given for the assessment by the trial judge were affected by an error of principle. He also complains that the assessment of damages failed to accord with findings made by his Honour relevant to the error of principle. Pursuant to s 46A of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), the Court was constituted by two judges as the appeal relates solely to the amount of damages awarded.

Factual Background

  1. Mr Parker worked as a cutter in the fashion industry for more than 20 years before he began employment with Wish Designs. On 30 November 2006, Mr Parker experienced symptoms at work that subsequently led to medical attention in early 2007. Mr Parker made no allegation of a specific incident that gave rise to an injury. Rather,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Parker v Wish Designs Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] NSWCA 401
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Parker v Wish Designs Pty Ltd* concerned an assessment of damages for past economic loss. The appellant, who had suffered an injury during the course of his employment, contended that the trial judge had erred in calculating his damages by simply taking the mathematical difference between his pre-injury and post-injury earnings. The appellant argued that this approach failed to properly consider his overall loss of economic capacity.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had given proper regard to the appellant's loss of economic capacity when fixing damages for past economic loss, and whether the method adopted by the trial judge was consistent with how the appellant had advanced his claim. The court was also required to determine if the trial judge had made the necessary findings of fact to support the appellant's case on appeal.

Emmett JA and Tobias AJA dismissed the appeal. The court found that the trial judge's approach to calculating past economic loss was permissible and that the judge had made sufficient findings to support the assessment. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal be dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.