PATTERSON -v- KENNY [2017] WADC 58
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2017] WADC 58 | |
| Case No: | APP:88/2016 | 22 MARCH 2017 | |
| Coram: | GETHING DCJ | 5/05/17 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 23 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Decision of magistrate set aside Respondent's claim dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
JAMES KENNY
Respondent
Catchwords:
Appeal - Appeal against decision of magistrate awarding damages for loss of use of non-income earning motor vehicle - Principles to be applied in assessing damages payable for the loss of use of a non-income earning motor vehicle
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal allowed
Decision of magistrate set aside
Respondent's claim dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr C G Colvin SC with Mr G J Pynt
Respondent : Mr M Howard SC with Ms J Henderson
Solicitors:
Appellant : SRB Legal
Respondent : Jonathan D'Arcy & Co
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172
Anthanasopoulos v Moseley [2001] NSWCA 266
Badran v Public Transport Authority of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 28
Beamish v Kanakis [2017] WADC 33
Brocklehurst v Wolinski [2015] WADC 36
Butler v Bennett [2007] WADC 107
East Metropolitan Health Service v Martin [2017] WASCA 7
Fort v Pastoral Management Pty Ltd [2016] WADC 51
Jones v Darkan Hotel [2014] WASCA 133
La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (1992) 110 ALR 201
Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Hamsher…
Continue reading Patterson v Kenny
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Patterson v Kenny [2017] WADC 58
- Case
- [2017] WADC 58
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Patterson v Kenny, the appellant, Patterson, sought to appeal a decision of the magistrate that awarded the respondent, Kenny, damages for the loss of use of a non-income earning motor vehicle. The respondent had been involved in a motor vehicle accident with the appellant, and as a result, his vehicle was rendered unusable. The respondent sought compensation for the loss of use of the vehicle, which was not used for income generation.
The primary legal issue before the court was the principles to be applied in assessing damages payable for the loss of use of a non-income earning motor vehicle. The court considered whether the principles applicable to the loss of use of an income-earning vehicle could be applied to a non-income earning vehicle. The court also considered whether the respondent's use of the vehicle for non-income earning purposes, such as pleasure or convenience, could be taken into account when assessing damages.
The court held that the principles applicable to the loss of use of an income-earning vehicle could not be applied to a non-income earning vehicle. The court found that the respondent's use of the vehicle for pleasure or convenience could be taken into account when assessing damages, but only to the extent that it was reasonable and necessary. The court held that the magistrate had erred in awarding damages based on the loss of pleasure or convenience without considering whether such use was reasonable and necessary. The court found that the respondent had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the use of the vehicle for pleasure or convenience was reasonable and necessary.
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the magistrate, and dismissed the respondent's claim. The court held that the respondent was not entitled to damages for the loss of use of the non-income earning motor vehicle.
The primary legal issue before the court was the principles to be applied in assessing damages payable for the loss of use of a non-income earning motor vehicle. The court considered whether the principles applicable to the loss of use of an income-earning vehicle could be applied to a non-income earning vehicle. The court also considered whether the respondent's use of the vehicle for non-income earning purposes, such as pleasure or convenience, could be taken into account when assessing damages.
The court held that the principles applicable to the loss of use of an income-earning vehicle could not be applied to a non-income earning vehicle. The court found that the respondent's use of the vehicle for pleasure or convenience could be taken into account when assessing damages, but only to the extent that it was reasonable and necessary. The court held that the magistrate had erred in awarding damages based on the loss of pleasure or convenience without considering whether such use was reasonable and necessary. The court found that the respondent had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the use of the vehicle for pleasure or convenience was reasonable and necessary.
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the magistrate, and dismissed the respondent's claim. The court held that the respondent was not entitled to damages for the loss of use of the non-income earning motor vehicle.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Decision of magistrate set aside
Respondent's claim dismissed
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.