Negligence - Personal injury - Car crash - Where defendant accepted liability - Appeal and cross‑appeal on quantum of damages - Plaintiff receiving income protection policy payments - Whether judge erred in award of interest on past economic loss - Whether judge erred in failing to provide adequate reasons for making a global award for future economic loss when plaintiff was fit for pre‑accident employment - Whether judge erred in assessing past loss of earning capacity - Whether judge erred in making no award for past and future loss of superannuation when plaintiff was company director - Whether judge erred in failing to award adequate travel expenses
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Player v Avery
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Player v Avery [2022] WASCA 147
Case
[2022] WASCA 147
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiff, Player, was involved in a car accident caused by the defendant, Avery. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute was the quantum of damages awarded by the trial judge, focusing on the correctness of the interest on past economic loss, the global award for future economic loss, the assessment of past loss of earning capacity, the omission of past and future loss of superannuation, and the travel expenses awarded.
The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in awarding interest on past economic loss when the defendant had admitted liability. Additionally, the court had to consider if the judge was correct in making a global award for future economic loss without providing adequate reasons, especially since the plaintiff was fit for pre-accident employment. The court also examined whether the trial judge erred in assessing past loss of earning capacity and whether the failure to award past and future loss of superannuation was justified when the plaintiff was a company director. Lastly, the court reviewed if the omission of adequate travel expenses constituted an error.
The court found that the trial judge erred in awarding interest on past economic loss due to the defendant’s admission of liability. The court concluded that the judge provided insufficient reasons for the global award of future economic loss, particularly considering the plaintiff’s fitness for pre-accident employment. The assessment of past loss of earning capacity was deemed to require a more detailed analysis. Regarding superannuation, the court held that the trial judge's failure to consider the plaintiff's status as a company director was a mistake. Finally, the court determined that the travel expenses awarded were inadequate, warranting an increase.
The court ordered that the interest on past economic loss be removed. The global award for future economic loss was to be reconsidered with adequate reasons provided. The assessment of past loss of earning capacity was to be reviewed, and an appropriate award for past and future loss of superannuation was to be made. Additionally, the travel expenses were to be increased to reflect the actual costs incurred by the plaintiff.