Riley v Cocco - [2001] NSWCA 379

CITATION: Riley v Cocco [2001] NSWCA 379

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40261/00

HEARING DATE(S): 28 June 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
26 October 2001

PARTIES :

Robert Bruce Riley (Appellant)
Antonio Cocco (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Heydon JA at 2; Young CJ in Eq at 53

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : DC M34/98

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Patten DCJ

COUNSEL: Mr B H K Donovan QC/Mr B D Dooley (Appellant)
Mr J P Guihot (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Marshall & Partners (Appellant)
Hunt & Hunt (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Torts - Motor Accidents - Damages - Causation - Whether damages manifestly inadequate - Whether damages excessive - Whether trial juge made appellable errors in assessment of evidence - Construction of trial judge's language re damages for workers compensation repayments - Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW, s 79 - ND

LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents Act 1988
Workers Compensation Act 1987

CASES CITED:
Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438
Kempsey District Hospital v Thackham (1995) 36 NSWLR 492
Wilson v Peisley (1975) 7 ALR 571
Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485

DECISION: See para 52

CA 40261/00

DC M34/98

MASON P

HEYDON JA

YOUNG CJ in Eq

RILEY v COCCO

Torts - Motor Accidents – Damages – Causation - Whether damages manifestly inadequate – Whether damages excessive – Whether trial judge made appellable errors in assessment of evidence – Construction of trial judge’s language re damages for workers compensation repayments – Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW), s 79A

On 6 May 1996 the appellant (“the plaintiff”) suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff was involved in other accidents before and after this date. The respondent (“the defendant”) admitted liability in relation to the 6 May 1996 accident, and the plaintiff was awarded $103,709 in damages plus costs. The plaintiff appealed on the ground of inadequacy of damages. The defendant cross-appealed, claiming that the damages were excessive.

Held by Heydon JA (Mason P and Young CJ in Eq concurring), dismissing the appeal and cross-appeal:

The trial judge was not shown to have fallen into appellable error.

Heydon JA at [21].

ORDERS

1. Order that the appeal be dismissed.

2. Order that the cross-appeal be dismissed.

3. Note that the court makes no order as to the costs of either the appeal or the cross-appeal.

CA 40261/00

DC M34/98

MASON P

HEYDON JA

YOUNG CJ in Eq

RILEY v COCCO

Judgment

I agree with Heydon JA.

Background

3 The plaintiff appealed on the ground of inadequacy of damages. The defendant cross-appealed. The defendant complained that the trial judge erred in finding that the plaintiff’s ability to lead a normal life had been…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Riley v Cocco

Details

AGLC: Riley v Cocco [2001] NSWCA 379
Case: [2001] NSWCA 379
Decision Date: 26 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of New South Wales concerning damages awarded in a motor accident claim. The appellant, Mr Riley, sought to appeal against the quantum of damages awarded to the respondent, Mr Cocco, following a motor vehicle accident.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the damages awarded by the trial judge were manifestly inadequate or excessive, and whether the trial judge had made appellable errors in assessing the evidence presented. A specific point of contention involved the construction of the trial judge's language concerning damages for workers compensation repayments, as contemplated by section 79 of the *Motor Accidents Act 1988* (NSW).

The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence and the trial judge's findings, paying close attention to the assessment of Mr Cocco's injuries and their impact on his earning capacity. The judges considered the principles governing appeals on questions of fact and the assessment of damages, including the threshold for intervention where damages are alleged to be inadequate or excessive. The court analysed the trial judge's reasons for judgment, particularly in relation to the calculation of economic loss and the application of section 79 of the *Motor Accidents Act 1988* (NSW).

The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no appellable error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or the quantum of damages awarded. The orders of the District Court were affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See para 52

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.

CITATION:	Riley v Cocco [2001] NSWCA 379
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40261/00
HEARING DATE(S):	28 June 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:	26 October 2001
PARTIES :	Robert Bruce Riley (Appellant) Antonio Cocco (Respondent)
JUDGMENT OF:	Mason P at 1; Heydon JA at 2; Young CJ in Eq at 53

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	DC M34/98
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Patten DCJ

COUNSEL:	Mr B H K Donovan QC/Mr B D Dooley (Appellant) Mr J P Guihot (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:	Marshall & Partners (Appellant) Hunt & Hunt (Respondent)
CATCHWORDS:	Torts - Motor Accidents - Damages - Causation - Whether damages manifestly inadequate - Whether damages excessive - Whether trial juge made appellable errors in assessment of evidence - Construction of trial judge's language re damages for workers compensation repayments - Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW, s 79 - ND
LEGISLATION CITED:	Motor Accidents Act 1988 Workers Compensation Act 1987
CASES CITED:	Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438 Kempsey District Hospital v Thackham (1995) 36 NSWLR 492 Wilson v Peisley (1975) 7 ALR 571 Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485
DECISION:	See para 52