Taylor v Walker

[2016] NSWCA 100

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation:	Taylor v Walker [2016] NSWCA 100
Hearing dates:	1 April 2016
Decision date:	09 May 2016
Before:	Ward JA at [1]; Payne JA at [60]; Harrison J at [61]
Decision:	Appeal dismissed with costs.
Catchwords:	DAMAGES – motor accident – future treatment expenses – past and future assistance – whether primary judge’s assessment erroneous and not supported by evidence – whether evidence supported award of buffer amount for contingencies
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 50.11
Cases Cited:	Hannover Life Re of Australasia Ltd v Dargan [2012] NSWCA 185 Nominal Defendant v Lane [2004] NSWCA 405 Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201 Wiki v Atlantis Relocations (NSW) Pty Limited [2004] NSWCA 174; (2004) 60 NSWLR 127 Wynn Tresidder Management Pty Ltd v Barkho [2009] NSWCA 149
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Tracey Kim Taylor (First Appellant) Gordon Donald Laing (Second Appellant) Geoffrey Grant Walker (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: KP Rewell SC (Appellants) JM Morris SC with Ms M Castle (Respondent)   Solicitors: Moray & Agnew (Appellants) MAK Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2015/00060359
Publication restriction:	Nil
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: District Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Civil Date of Decision: 19 December 2014 Before: Balla DCJ File Number(s): 2007/00293496

HEADNOTE

[This Headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

This judgment relates to an appeal from a decision of a judge in the District Court awarding judgment in favour of the respondent, Mr Walker, in respect of his claim for damages following a motor vehicle accident in which he was seriously injured.

The two appellants were the owner and driver of a vehicle which reversed out of a driveway and collided with Mr Walker’s motorcycle. Mr Walker sued the appellants in negligence. During the hearing in the District Court, the appellants admitted breach of duty of care but alleged contributory negligence on Mr Walker’s part. The primary judge declined to find contributory negligence and awarded judgment in favour of Mr Walker which, together with interest and an agreed increase in the claimed past out-of-pocket expenses, was entered in the sum of $3,014,526.40. The appellants were ordered to pay Mr Walker’s costs as agreed or assessed.

The appellants challenged the primary judge’s award of damages under two heads of damage: future treatment expenses and past and future domestic assistance. Mr Walker in turn filed a notice of contention seeking to affirm her Honour’s decision on the basis of evidence on which her Honour did not expressly rely.

Held by Ward JA (Payne JA and Harrison J agreeing at [60] and [61], respectively), dismissing the appeal with costs:

(1) (at [21]; [28]) that the award of a global sum of $250,000 for future treatment expenses was not excessive or against the weight of the evidence. The award of a global sum, which included a buffer for expenses over and above the cost of inevitable surgeries and medication, was a course open…