Peric-Davies v Mazdo

The appeal concerned a personal injury claim brought by the appellant, Peric-Davies, against the respondent, Mazdo, under the *Motor Accidents Act*. The primary dispute revolved around whether the appellant had met the threshold requirements for certain types of damages under the Act, specifically concerning economic loss and out-of-pocket expenses. The matter was heard on appeal before Giles and Hodgson JJA, and Bell J.

The central legal issue before the appeal court was whether the primary judge had made an appealable error in their findings regarding the appellant's injuries and entitlement to damages. Specifically, the court had to determine if the primary judge had failed to make necessary findings as to the extent of the appellant's injuries, which would have entitled them to recover past economic loss and out-of-pocket expenditure, and if such findings were made, whether adequate reasons were provided for them.

The appeal court found that the primary judge had not made sufficient findings to enable the assessment of damages. Without clear findings on the extent of the appellant's injuries and the consequent impact on their capacity to earn income and incur expenses, the appeal court was unable to assess the damages themselves. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the original verdict and judgment for the defendant, and ordered a new trial in the District Court solely for the assessment of damages. The costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellant, with the costs of the first trial to abide the outcome of the new trial.