Spaulding v Eirth

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, Court of Appeal, heard an appeal and cross-appeal concerning an award of damages. The appellant, Spaulding, sought to challenge the original judgment, while the respondent, Eirth, also cross-appealed. The dispute centred on the assessment of damages, particularly general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities arising from a cervical spine injury and chronic pain syndrome.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the original award of damages was excessive or inadequate, and whether the award was inconsistent with the findings of fact and law made at trial. Specifically, the court was required to consider the appropriateness of the $90,000 awarded for general damages in light of the established injuries.

The Court of Appeal found that the original award of damages was indeed inconsistent with the findings of fact and law. The court reasoned that the quantum of general damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities was demonstrably too high, given the nature and extent of the injuries as determined by the trial judge. Consequently, the court allowed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, varying the original judgment sum. The total judgment was reduced from $361,913 to $215,913. Leave to amend the notice of cross-appeal was refused.