Robinson v Nominal Defendant

The plaintiff, Robinson, appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a finding on damages following a motor vehicle accident. The appeal concerned the assessment of damages in circumstances where conflicting medical reports were before the trial judge, and no oral expert evidence was presented. The appeal was brought under sections 70A and 79 of the *Motor Accidents Act 1988* (NSW).

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge erred in assessing damages, particularly in light of the conflicting expert medical evidence and the absence of oral testimony from the medical experts. This required the Court to consider how a trial judge should approach and weigh conflicting documentary expert evidence when determining the extent of a plaintiff's injuries and resulting damages.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in the assessment of damages. It reasoned that where there is conflicting expert evidence, and no oral evidence is led, a judge must carefully consider the basis of each report and the reasons for the differing opinions. The Court held that the trial judge had not adequately discharged this duty, leading to an erroneous assessment of damages. Consequently, the Court upheld the appeal, set aside the verdict on damages, and ordered a new trial. The Nominal Defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself.