Ruffles v Chilman - [2002] WASCA 145

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: RUFFLES -v- CHILMAN & ANOR [2002] WASCA 145

CORAM: WALLWORK J
ANDERSON J
STEYTLER J

HEARD: 5 APRIL 2002

DELIVERED : 7 JUNE 2002

FILE NO/S: FUL 83 of 2000

BETWEEN: PATRICK CHARLES RUFFLES
Appellant (Plaintiff)
AND
GEOFFREY CHILMAN
First Respondent (First Defendant)
KEVIN HAMILTON
Second Respondent (Second Defendant)

Catchwords:

Damages - Appeal - Motor vehicle accident - Whether findings at trial inconsistent with evidence - Whether appellant had exaggerated his symptoms - Credibility of appellant the major issue - Decided on the facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant (Plaintiff)  :        Mr C P Shanahan & Mr R J Butcher
First Respondent (First Defendant)          :        Ms B A Mangan
Second Respondent (Second Defendant) :        Ms B A Mangan

Solicitors:

Appellant (Plaintiff)  :        Butcher Paull & Calder
First Respondent (First Defendant)          :        Phillips Fox
Second Respondent (Second Defendant) :        Phillips Fox

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112
Mahony v J Kruschich (Demolitions) Pty Ltd (1985) 156 CLR 522
March v Stramare (E&HM) Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164

Case(s) also cited:

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549
Loffo v Giang (1990) 13 MVR 59
Morgan v Tame [2000] NSWCA 121
Smith v Carbone, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960369; 16 May 1996
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (1999) 73 ALJR 306
Sullivan v Mavromatidis, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970355; 22 July 1997
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158
Western Australia v Watson [1990] WAR 248

WALLWORK J: The appellant appeals against an award of damages which he received in the District Court at Perth on 11 April 2000. He claims that the award is insufficient.
The first ground of his appeal is that the learned Commissioner erred in finding that his addiction to pethidine and his excessive use of other analgesics was not caused by a motor vehicle accident on the 6 February 1989. He contends that the findings of the learned Commissioner were inconsistent with the evidence of Dr Skerritt, the treating psychiatrist, whose evidence was largely accepted by the learned Commissioner and generally that the findings of the learned Commissioner were inconsistent with the evidence.
The second ground of appeal is that the learned Commissioner erred in finding that the appellant's psychological condition was not caused by and was unrelated to the accident.
The third ground is that the damages awarded were below the exercise of a sound discretionary judgment.

The Motor Vehicle Accident

The relevant accident occurred on the morning of 6 February 1989 in Great Eastern Highway at Midvale. A vehicle ran into the back of a vehicle being…

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 Ruffles v Chilman

Details

AGLC: Ruffles v Chilman [2002] WASCA 145
Case: [2002] WASCA 145
Decision Date: 7 JUNE 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ruffles v Chilman, the appellant, Ruffles, sought damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident against the respondent, Chilman. The trial judge had awarded damages of $287,000, which Ruffles deemed inadequate. The court of appeal was tasked with assessing the trial judge's findings, particularly regarding the appellant's credibility and the extent of his injuries. The central issue was whether the trial judge's findings were inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial, and if the appellant had exaggerated his symptoms.

The court of appeal held that the trial judge's findings were not inconsistent with the evidence and that the credibility of the appellant was indeed the major issue in the case. The trial judge had considered the appellant's evidence and determined that he had exaggerated his symptoms. The court of appeal agreed with this assessment, affirming that the trial judge's evaluation of the evidence was thorough and that there was no basis to overturn the findings regarding the extent of the appellant's injuries.

The court of appeal upheld the trial judge's award of damages, finding that it was appropriate given the evidence and the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's credibility. The court emphasised that the trial judge had carefully considered the appellant's evidence and the medical reports, and had come to a reasoned conclusion based on the credibility of the evidence presented. The appeal was dismissed, and the original award of damages was maintained.

Orders