Sretenovic v Reed

The appeal concerned an assessment of damages for personal injuries suffered by the respondent, Mr Sretenovic, who was a minor at the time of the incident. The appellants, Mr and Mrs Reed, sought to appeal the judgment of the primary judge, arguing that the damages awarded were excessive, particularly in relation to the cost of future treatment and non-economic loss. The core of the appeal lay in whether the primary judge's findings of fact regarding the respondent's psychological condition were supported by the expert evidence presented.

The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge erred in his assessment of the respondent's psychological condition and the consequent damages. Specifically, the appellants contended that the primary judge made findings of fact concerning the respondent's disabilities that were not supported by the opinions of the qualified psychiatrists, Associate Professor Quadrio and Dr Whan. They argued that the primary judge had improperly relied on his own personal opinion rather than the evidence presented, particularly in relation to the potential for the respondent's recovery and the severity of his ongoing psychological impairments.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the court below. The Court found that the primary judge had either made findings of fact unsupported by the evidence or had applied his personal opinion regarding the respondent's psychological condition. The Court emphasised the fundamental judicial obligation to base findings of fact on proved evidence, citing principles from cases such as *Strinic* and *Saunders v Adderley*. It was held that a judge's personal experience, even in medical matters, does not replace the requirement to base findings on the evidence presented, and doing so constitutes an error of law and a breach of procedural fairness. The Court noted that Professor Quadrio's evidence, which the primary judge accepted, did not support the findings that the respondent's depression would worsen or that treatment prospects were poor. Instead, Professor Quadrio's opinion suggested that symptoms could be ameliorated with appropriate treatment, although the duration of that treatment might vary.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the appeal be allowed and the judgment of the court below be set aside. The parties were directed to bring in Short Minutes of Order within 14 days to determine the sum to be awarded to the respondent on the basis of the Court's reasons. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal.