Richardson v Whymark Nominees Pty Ltd

The matter between Richardson and Whymark Nominees Pty Ltd was brought before the court to determine the adequacy of damages awarded to the appellant for injuries sustained in a workplace accident. The appellant, who had been employed as a sandblaster, was injured and subsequently found to be unable to resume his previous work or any employment involving heavy lifting. The appellant's capacity for employment was further limited by his intellectual disability and verbal skills. The court had to consider whether the appellant could have been employed in occupations such as a service station console operator or storeperson, and determined that his earning capacity post-accident would be between the wages of those two occupations. The court was tasked with assessing the loss of the appellant's earning capacity both in the past and into the future, and whether the damages awarded were adequate in light of these circumstances.

The legal issues before the court were whether the damages awarded to the appellant were sufficient to compensate for his loss of earning capacity and whether they were at least equal to the prescribed amount as at the date of judgment. The court had to consider the appellant's reduced capacity for employment and the impact of his intellectual disability and verbal skills on his ability to find alternative work. The court also had to determine the appropriate comparison for assessing the appellant's earning capacity and the appropriate method for calculating damages for loss of earning capacity.

The court found that the damages awarded to the appellant were inadequate. The court considered the appellant's reduced capacity for employment and the impact of his intellectual disability and verbal skills on his ability to find alternative work. The court determined that the appellant's earning capacity post-accident was between the wages of a service station console operator and a storeperson, and that the damages awarded did not adequately reflect this reduced earning capacity. The court found that the damages were not at least equal to the prescribed amount as at the date of judgment. The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the trial court for reassessment of damages.