SETTON -v- EVES [2006] WASCA 3
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2006] WASCA 3 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:41/2004 | 6 OCTOBER 2005 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER P MCLURE JA SIMMONDS AJA | 20/01/06 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Cross-Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GABRIELLA SETTON SALLY ANN EVES |
Catchwords: | Torts Damages for personal injury Appeal Diminution of past and future earning capacity Assessment of retained earning capacity Whether proper approach used to discount for retained or residual earning capacity in determination of award for diminution of past and future earning capacity Whether proper approach used to discount for contingencies in determination of award for diminution of future earning capacity Whether proper approach used to determine past and future loss of superannuation contributions Interest on diminution of past earning capacity Practice and procedure Costs Cross-Appeal Order 24A offer of compromise Whether grounds to depart form general rule as to costs |
Legislation: | Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA), s 3C |
Case References: | Bowen v Tutte (1990) A Tort Rep 81-043 Cullen v Trappell (1980) 54 ALJR 295 Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1 State of New South Wales v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536 Thomas v O'Shea (1989) A Tort Rep 80-251 Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485 Abbott v Pacific Industrial Co, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970079; 4 March 1997 Black v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust [1986] WAR 32 De Sales v Ingrilli (2000) 23 WAR 417 Kschammer v R W Piper & Sons Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 298 State Government Insurance Commission v Toomath (1996) MVR 319 Wade v Allsopp (1976) 50 ALJR 643 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : SETTON -v- EVES [2006] WASCA 3 CORAM : STEYTLER P
- MCLURE JA
SIMMONDS AJA
- Appellant (Plaintiff)
AND
SALLY ANN EVES
Respondent (Defendant)
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : COMMISSIONER GILES
Citation : SETTON v EVES [2003] WADC 176
File No : CIV 148 of 2002
Catchwords:
Torts - Damages for personal injury - Appeal - Diminution of past and future earning capacity - Assessment of retained earning capacity - Whether proper approach used to discount for retained or residual earning capacity in
(Page 2)
determination of award for diminution of past and future earning capacity - Whether proper approach used to discount for contingencies in determination of award for diminution of future earning capacity - Whether proper approach used to determine past and future loss of superannuation contributions - Interest on diminution of past earning capacity
Practice and procedure - Costs - Cross-Appeal - Order 24A offer of compromise - Whether grounds…
Continue reading Setton v Eves
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Setton v Eves [2006] WASCA 3
- Case
- [2006] WASCA 3
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Setton v Eves involved a dispute concerning the assessment of damages for personal injury, where the plaintiff, Setton, sought compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by the defendant, Eves. The case was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The primary issues for the court were the proper methods for assessing the diminution of past and future earning capacities, the consideration of retained or residual earning capacity in these assessments, and the treatment of contingencies in future earning capacity calculations. Furthermore, the court had to determine the appropriate approach for calculating past and future superannuation contributions lost due to the injury. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of interest on the diminution of past earning capacity and the application of the general rule regarding costs under Order 24A of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.
The court examined whether the lower court had employed the correct approach in assessing the plaintiff's retained earning capacity and discounting this in the calculation of damages for the diminution of past and future earning capacity. The court also scrutinized the discount applied for contingencies in future earning capacity assessments, ensuring that the method used was consistent with established legal principles. The High Court highlighted the necessity for a comprehensive and equitable approach to these calculations, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and relevant legal precedents. The court further deliberated on the correct method for calculating the loss of superannuation contributions, ensuring that the award accurately reflected the financial impact of the plaintiff's injuries. Moreover, the court deliberated on the applicability of interest on the diminution of past earning capacity, considering the principles of compensatory justice and the statutory provisions governing such awards.
The High Court found that the lower court had erred in its approach to assessing the diminution of past and future earning capacities, particularly in the way it had discounted for retained or residual earning capacity and in its treatment of contingencies. The court determined that the proper approach required a more nuanced consideration of the plaintiff's specific circumstances and the principles of compensatory damages. The court also ruled that the lower court had not appropriately assessed the loss of superannuation contributions, requiring a recalculation based on the correct legal standards. The High Court allowed the appeal on these grounds, directing the lower court to reassess the damages in accordance with its findings. The cross-appeal by the defendant regarding the costs under Order 24A was dismissed, as the court found no grounds to depart from the general rule on costs in this instance.
The court examined whether the lower court had employed the correct approach in assessing the plaintiff's retained earning capacity and discounting this in the calculation of damages for the diminution of past and future earning capacity. The court also scrutinized the discount applied for contingencies in future earning capacity assessments, ensuring that the method used was consistent with established legal principles. The High Court highlighted the necessity for a comprehensive and equitable approach to these calculations, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and relevant legal precedents. The court further deliberated on the correct method for calculating the loss of superannuation contributions, ensuring that the award accurately reflected the financial impact of the plaintiff's injuries. Moreover, the court deliberated on the applicability of interest on the diminution of past earning capacity, considering the principles of compensatory justice and the statutory provisions governing such awards.
The High Court found that the lower court had erred in its approach to assessing the diminution of past and future earning capacities, particularly in the way it had discounted for retained or residual earning capacity and in its treatment of contingencies. The court determined that the proper approach required a more nuanced consideration of the plaintiff's specific circumstances and the principles of compensatory damages. The court also ruled that the lower court had not appropriately assessed the loss of superannuation contributions, requiring a recalculation based on the correct legal standards. The High Court allowed the appeal on these grounds, directing the lower court to reassess the damages in accordance with its findings. The cross-appeal by the defendant regarding the costs under Order 24A was dismissed, as the court found no grounds to depart from the general rule on costs in this instance.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Cross-Appeal dismissed
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.