New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Qantas Airways Ltd v Lisica [2007] NSWCA 371
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.HEARING DATE(S): 25 May 2007
JUDGMENT DATE:
18 December 2007JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Ipp JA at 68; McColl JA at 69 DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed with costs; 2. Respondent to have a certificate under the Suitor's Fund Act if so qualified; 3. Parties to bring in short minutes of order, on or before 30 January 2008, to accord with the reasons. CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES — Personal injury — plaintiff with psychiatric disorder partly caused by sequelae of workplace injury and partly by marriage breakdown — real probability that had workplace injury had not occurred plaintiff might have suffered from a mental illness or condition that might have caused him pain and suffering and prevented him from improving his qualifications — failure by primary judge to evaluate the increased likelihood that plaintiff would have suffered pain and suffering, as well as economic loss, due to his psychiatric disorder even if workplace injury had not occurred material error warranting re-assessment of damages LEGISLATION CITED: Suitors' Fund Act 1951
Workers Compensation Act 1987
Supreme Court Rules 1970
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005CASES CITED: Chappel v Hart [1998] HCA 55; (1998) 195 CLR 232
Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33; (1986) 162 CLR 1
Fightvision Pty Ltd v Onisforou [1999] NSWCA 323; (1999) 47 NSWLR 473
Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794
K-Mart Australia Ltd v McCann [2004] NSWCA 283
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 20; (1990) 169 CLR 638
Mallet v McMonagle [1970] AC 166
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission [1995] HCA 5; (1995) 182 CLR 1
Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; (1965) 114 CLR 164
Seltsam Pty Ltd v Gahleb [2005] NSWCA 208; (2005) 3 DDCR 1
State of New South Wales v Burton [2006] NSWCA 12
Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; (1960) 108 CLR 158
Wiki v Atlantis Relocations (NSW) Pty Limited [2004] NSWCA 174; (2004) 60 NSWLR 127PARTIES: Qantas Airways Ltd - Appellant
Mark Lisica - RespondentFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40799 of 2006 COUNSEL: Mr JE Maconachie QC with Mr NE Chen for the Appellant
Mr AJ Lidden SC with Mr MAJ Daley for the RespondentSOLICITORS: Home Wilkinson Lowry - for the Appellant
Brydens Law Office - for the RespondentLOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 572 of 2004 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Quirk J LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 28 July 2006
Tuesday 18 December 2007
BEAZLEY JACA 40799/06
DC 572 of 2004
IPP JA
McCOLL JA
Judgment
1 BEAZLEY JA: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment of McColl JA. As her Honour has set out the factual matters relevant to the issues raised before this…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Qantas Airways Ltd v Lisica and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2007] NSWCA 371
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in failing to adequately assess the increased likelihood that Mr Lisica would have suffered pain and suffering, and economic loss, due to his psychiatric disorder even if the workplace injury had not occurred. This involved considering the impact of the marriage breakdown on his mental health and future prospects independently of the workplace injury.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had made a material error in this regard. It held that the assessment of damages must account for the real probability that Mr Lisica might have suffered from a mental illness or condition, leading to pain and suffering and hindering his ability to improve his qualifications, irrespective of the workplace injury. This failure to evaluate the independent contribution of other factors to his condition warranted a re-assessment of the damages awarded.
The appeal was allowed with costs, and the respondent was granted a certificate under the Suitor's Fund Act, subject to any qualifications. The parties were directed to submit short minutes of order consistent with the Court's reasons.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed with costs; 2. Respondent to have a certificate under the Suitor's Fund Act unless otherwise qualified; 3. Parties to bring in short minutes of order, on or before 30 January 2008, to accord with the reasons.
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.