Paul Andrew Barton v Samarkos Earthmoving Pty Limited

This case involved an appeal by Paul Andrew Barton (the appellant) against a decision of Connolly J in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a fall at a construction site on 18 November 1998, where he suffered a shoulder injury. The appeal concerned the adequacy of the damages awarded by the primary judge, specifically in relation to general damages, future economic loss, and future domestic assistance. Liability for the injury was not in dispute.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge’s assessment of general damages was inadequate, particularly concerning the future component given the need for further surgery and the possibility of its failure. The court also had to consider whether the award for future economic loss was sufficient, taking into account the appellant's pre-existing disabilities, the impact of the shoulder injury, and the uncertainty surrounding his future earning capacity. Finally, the court was asked to assess the adequacy of the award for future domestic assistance, considering the likely need for such assistance following anticipated surgery.

The Court of Appeal found that while the overall award for general damages was within an acceptable range, the apportionment between past and future components was not a matter for interference. Regarding future economic loss, the court determined that the allowance of $50,000 was inadequate, considering the known adverse event of the likely shoulder operation and the potential for total incapacity for up to six months, in addition to the appellant's pre-existing restrictions. The court increased this award to $75,000. Similarly, the award for future domestic assistance of $10,000 was deemed to have overlooked the need for assistance following the anticipated surgery, and the court awarded an additional $5,000 for this head of damage.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the total judgment sum was increased by $30,000, bringing the final award to $266,926.76.