Steven John French v State of New South Wales
Case
•
[1999] NSWCA 175
•11 June 1999
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Steven John French v State of New South Wales [1999] NSWCA 175
[1999] NSWCA 175
11 June 1999
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Steven John French (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the District Court which had awarded him general damages for a back injury but had denied him damages for economic loss, including loss of earning capacity. The dispute centred on the extent of the appellant's injuries and the impact of those injuries on his ability to earn income.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the District Court judge had erred in finding that the appellant had no loss of earning capacity. This involved considering whether the judge had made errors in preferring certain medical evidence over other evidence, in finding that the appellant had recovered from his injury, and alternatively, whether the appellant's lost earning capacity would not have been exercised even if it existed. The court also had to consider whether the judge had erred in wholly excluding financial loss.
Giles JA and Rolfe J found that the District Court judge had erred in several respects. Their Honours noted that the judge had made an error in preferring certain medical evidence and in finding that the appellant had recovered from his injury. Furthermore, they held that even if the appellant had lost earning capacity, it was not established that he would not have exercised it. Consequently, the judge had erred in wholly excluding financial loss. The court applied principles of assessing damages for personal injury, particularly concerning loss of earning capacity and the weight to be given to medical evidence.
The appeal was allowed with costs, the judgment of $12,353 was set aside, and a new trial was ordered, limited to the assessment of damages.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the District Court judge had erred in finding that the appellant had no loss of earning capacity. This involved considering whether the judge had made errors in preferring certain medical evidence over other evidence, in finding that the appellant had recovered from his injury, and alternatively, whether the appellant's lost earning capacity would not have been exercised even if it existed. The court also had to consider whether the judge had erred in wholly excluding financial loss.
Giles JA and Rolfe J found that the District Court judge had erred in several respects. Their Honours noted that the judge had made an error in preferring certain medical evidence and in finding that the appellant had recovered from his injury. Furthermore, they held that even if the appellant had lost earning capacity, it was not established that he would not have exercised it. Consequently, the judge had erred in wholly excluding financial loss. The court applied principles of assessing damages for personal injury, particularly concerning loss of earning capacity and the weight to be given to medical evidence.
The appeal was allowed with costs, the judgment of $12,353 was set aside, and a new trial was ordered, limited to the assessment of damages.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Damages
-
Appeal
-
Remedies
-
Causation
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Garling v Patiniotis [2024] TASSC 29
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Graham v Baker
[1961] HCA 48
Graham v Baker
[1961] HCA 48
Graham v Baker
[1961] HCA 48