Sullivan v Gordon

Case [1999] NSWCA 338


Reported Decision: 47 NSWLR 319
(1999) Aust Torts Reports 81-524

New South Wales


Court of Appeal

CITATION: Sullivan v Gordon [1999] NSWCA 338
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40456/96
HEARING DATE(S): 18/05/98
10/06/99
Considered on the papers
JUDGMENT DATE:
22 September 1999

PARTIES :


Paula Hinemoa Sullivan
Anthony Lance Gordon
JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Mason P at 2; Powell JA at 16; Beazley JA at 17; Stein JA at 92
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Common Law Division
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 500178/90
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Newman J
COUNSEL: Appellant: J S CoombsQC/ P J Doherty
Respondent: D Nock SC/ L Babb (18/05/98)/ D Banwell (10/06/99)
SOLICITORS: Appellant: Messinger & Messinger
Respondent: Turner Freeman
CATCHWORDS: Motor vehicle accident; damages; Griffith v Kerkemeyer damages; Burnicle v Cutelli; loss of capacity; damages for care; inability to care for children; impairment of ability to lead a normal life; reduction of damages for vicissitudes; Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW) ss 72(2), 79, 80
ACTS CITED: Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
CASES CITED:
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Burnicle v Cutelli [1982] 2 NSWLR 26
Donnelly v Joyce [1974] QB 454
Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340
Nguyen v Nguyen (1990) 169 CLR 245
Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327
Government Insurance Office of New South Wales v Planas [1984] 2 NSWLR 671
Haines v Higgins (unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 16 December 1988)
Samrout v Alameddine (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Grove J, 24 April 1996)
Kealy v Fairfield Hospital (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Dunford J, 18 April 1997)
Sturch v Willmott [1997] 2 Qd R310
Daly v General Steam Navigation Co Ltd (The "Dragon") [1981] 1 WLR 120
Cummings v Canberra Theatre Trust (1979) 25 ACTR 33
Hodges v Frost (1984) 53 ALR 373
Waters v Mussig [1986] 1 Qd R 224
Kite v Malycha (1988) 71 SASR 321
Willis v Commonwealth (1946) 73 CLR 105
Thompson v Faraonio (1979) 24 ALR 1
Ruby v Marsh (1975) 132 CLR 642
Johson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351
McKew v Holland Hannen & Cubitts [1969] 3 All ER 1621
Steamship Baron Vernon v Steamship Metagama [1928] SC (HL) 21
March v E&MH Stramare (1991) 71 CLR 506
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Chappell v Hart (1998) 156 CLR 517
Kavanagh v Akhtar (1988) 45 NSWLR 588
Re Jane (1988) 85 CLR 409
Matthews v Dean [1990] Aust Torts Rep 81-037
Southgate v Waterford (1990) 21 NSWLR 427
Dell v Dalton (1991) 23 NSWLR 528
NSW Associated Blue-Metal Quarries Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1956) 94 CLR 509
Moran v McMahon [1985] 3 NSWLR 700
Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CR 485
Hobell v Leonard (unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 29 May 1990)
Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australia Ltd v Pelosi (unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 2 February 1996)
Nestle Australia…

Continue reading Sullivan v Gordon

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sullivan v Gordon [1999] NSWCA 338
Case
[1999] NSWCA 338
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sullivan, the appellant, brought proceedings against Gordon, the respondent, for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The primary dispute concerned the assessment of damages, specifically relating to the appellant's loss of capacity and the provision of gratuitous care for her children, as well as the general impairment of her ability to lead a normal life. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in assessing damages for the appellant's loss of capacity, particularly in relation to her inability to care for her children, and whether the damages awarded for the impairment of her ability to lead a normal life were appropriate. The court was also required to consider the application of the vicissitudes principle in reducing the awarded damages, in light of the provisions of the *Motor Accidents Act 1988* (NSW), specifically sections 72(2), 79, and 80.

The Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeal, found that the trial judge had made errors in the assessment of damages. The court applied principles established in cases such as *Griffith v Kerkemeyer* and *Burnicle v Cutelli* concerning the assessment of damages for gratuitous care and loss of capacity. The court determined that the damages awarded for the appellant's loss of capacity, including her inability to care for her children and the impairment of her ability to lead a normal life, were not correctly calculated and that the reduction for vicissitudes was also inappropriate.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders of the trial court were set aside.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal Allowed

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.