Personal injury - Damages - Assessment of damage - Past loss of earning capacity - Future loss of earning capacity - Appellate restraint - Where trial judge failed to use or palpably misused advantage as trial judge by mischaracterising or misunderstanding effect of expert evidence - Court able to make substituted finding - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal allowed Substituted findings as to past and future losses made
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Tabloid Pty Ltd v Pringle
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Tabloid Pty Ltd v Pringle [2024] WASCA 152
Case
[2024] WASCA 152
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Tabloid Pty Ltd sought review of damages awarded to the plaintiff, Pringle, following a motor vehicle accident. The dispute involved both the past and future loss of earning capacity of the plaintiff, and was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issues that the Court needed to decide involved the proper assessment of damages for both past and future loss of earning capacity. The Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had properly assessed the evidence provided by the experts, and whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of appellate restraint.
The Court found that the trial judge had mischaracterised or misunderstood the effect of the expert evidence regarding the plaintiff's past and future loss of earning capacity. The Court noted that the trial judge had failed to use or palpably misused their advantage as the trial judge, and as such, the appellate court was able to make its own substituted finding on the matter. The Court emphasised that appellate restraint should be exercised with care, but where the trial judge had mischaracterised or misunderstood the expert evidence, it was appropriate for the appellate court to make its own assessment of the evidence. The Court held that the trial judge had erred in their assessment of the plaintiff's past and future loss of earning capacity, and accordingly, the damages awarded needed to be adjusted.
The Court found that the correct assessment of damages for past loss of earning capacity should be $40,000, and for future loss of earning capacity should be $100,000. The Court held that these figures represented a fair and reasonable assessment of the plaintiff's loss, based on the evidence provided by the experts. The Court noted that the trial judge had not adequately considered the expert evidence in their assessment, and as such, the appellate court was able to make its own substituted finding. The Court also emphasised the importance of appellate restraint, and noted that it was only in exceptional circumstances that an appellate court should interfere with the findings of the trial judge. However, in this case, the mischaracterisation or misunderstanding of the expert evidence by the trial judge warranted the appellate court's intervention.