Ramsey v Denton

Case [2021] NSWCA 310

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ramsey v Denton [2021] NSWCA 310
Hearing dates: 24 June 2021
Date of orders: 17 December 2021
Decision date: 17 December 2021
Before: Meagher JA at [1]
Simpson AJA at [2]
Cavanagh J at [3]
Decision:

(1) The appeal is allowed.

(2) The judgment of the District Court is set aside.

(3) In lieu thereof, judgment for the appellant in the sum of $257,164.84.

(4) The respondent is to pay the appellant’s legal costs up to the time his solicitors ceased to act.

Catchwords:

NEGLIGENCE – Damages – Economic loss – Earning capacity – Assessing loss of future earning capacity by way of buffer – Where primary judge reduced the period of earning capacity without a sufficient evidentiary basis – Appeal allowed

Legislation Cited:

Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Cervantes [2012] NSWCA 244

Brear v James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd (2000) 50 NSWLR 388; [2000] NSWCA 352

Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340; [1961] HCA 48

Pollard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 99

Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164; [1965] HCA 34

Rabay v Bristow [2005] NSWCA 199

Seltsam Pty Ltd v Ghaleb [2005] NSWCA 208

Todorovic v Waller (1981) 150 CLR 402; [1981] HCA 72

Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158; [1960] HCA 58

Wilson v Peisley (1975) 50 ALJR 207

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Stephen Noel Ramsey (Appellant)
Patricia Sherry Denton (Respondent)
Representation:

Appellant (Self-represented)
Respondent J Ryan (Counsel)

Solicitors:
McCabe Curwood Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/240356
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Citation:

[2020] NSWDC 426

Date of Decision:
06 August 2020
Before:
Dicker SC DCJ
File Number(s):
2016/219189

Judgment

  1. MEAGHER JA: I agree with Cavanagh J.

  2. SIMPSON AJA: I agree with Cavanagh J.

  3. CAVANAGH J: The appellant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 30 July 2014 (“the accident”).

  4. The appellant pursued a claim for damages against the respondent as the driver of the other vehicle in accordance with the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) (“MACA”).

  5. The respondent admitted liability and the matter proceeded to a hearing on damages issues in the District Court before his Honour, Judge M Dicker SC. On 6 August 2020, his Honour assessed damages in the sum of $207,164.84.

  6. The appellant appeals from that assessment, specifically in relation to the allowances for economic loss and care.

  7. Although the solicitors who represented him on the original hearing filed the notice of appeal, by the time of the hearing of the appeal, those solicitors had ceased to act and the appellant appeared without legal representation. John Ryan of Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent.

  8. The appellant did not provide written submissions but made oral submissions. Mr Ryan provided written and oral submissions and assisted the…

Continue reading Ramsey v Denton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ramsey v Denton [2021] NSWCA 310
Case
[2021] NSWCA 310
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Ramsey v Denton* concerned an assessment of damages for economic loss, specifically the loss of future earning capacity, in a negligence claim. The appellant, Ramsey, had been awarded judgment in the District Court, but appealed against the quantum of damages awarded.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in reducing the period of the appellant's assessed earning capacity without a sufficient evidentiary basis. This involved a determination of the correct principles to apply when assessing future economic loss, particularly in relation to the use of a "buffer" to account for uncertainties in future earning capacity.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had impermissibly reduced the period of earning capacity without adequate evidence to support such a reduction. The court applied established principles for assessing loss of future earning capacity, emphasising the need for an evidentiary foundation for any such adjustments. The court determined that the primary judge's approach was not supported by the evidence presented.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the District Court was set aside. The Court of Appeal substituted its own judgment for the appellant in the sum of $257,164.84 and ordered that the respondent pay the appellant’s legal costs up to the point when the appellant's solicitors ceased to act.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is allowed.

(2) The judgment of the District Court is set aside.

(3) In lieu thereof, judgment for the appellant in the sum of $257,164.84.

(4) The respondent is to pay the appellant’s legal costs up to the time his solicitors ceased to act.

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.