Paul Bernard Farrell v Woolworths Limited

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, constituted by Miles CJ, Crispin P, and Gray J, heard an appeal and a cross-appeal. The appeal was brought by the plaintiff, Paul Bernard Farrell, against the quantum of damages awarded by the Master. The defendant, Woolworths Limited, cross-appealed against both the Master's finding of liability and the quantum of damages.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Master's finding of negligence against Woolworths Limited was adequately supported by the evidence, and, if so, whether the assessment of damages was correct. Specifically, the court had to determine if the plaintiff's impression of truthfulness was a sufficient basis for the Master's finding of negligence, particularly when the plaintiff's account of the injury was inconsistent with other established facts. The court also considered the principles governing the assessment of damages in cases involving pre-existing degenerative conditions and the extent to which an injury might accelerate or exacerbate such conditions.

The court allowed the cross-appeal on liability, finding that the Master's impression of the plaintiff as a truthful witness was too fragile a basis to support the finding of negligence. This conclusion was reached because the plaintiff's account of the incident was demonstrably inconsistent with uncontrovertible evidence, including the absence of his alleged supervisors on the day in question and the significant delay in reporting the injury. The court held that the inherent improbability of the plaintiff's behaviour, if his account were true, was not overcome by his general demeanour. Regarding damages, the court found that the Master's assessment, while complex, was not demonstrably erroneous, even assuming the injury had occurred. However, as the finding of negligence was set aside, the judgment for the plaintiff was also set aside.

Consequently, the appeal by the plaintiff was dismissed, and the cross-appeal by the defendant was allowed. The judgment and order of the Master were set aside, and judgment was entered for the respondent (Woolworths Limited). There were no orders as to costs unless written submissions were received within seven days.