THOMAS -v- BASS [2006] WASCA 59
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2006] WASCA 59 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:96/2003 | 3 JUNE 2004, 8 NOVEMBER 2005 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J EM HEENAN J LE MIERE J | 5/04/06 | |
| 27 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : THOMAS -v- BASS [2006] WASCA 59 CORAM : MURRAY J
- EM HEENAN J
LE MIERE J
- Appellant
AND
DAVID ALLEN BASS
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : LA JACKSON DCJ
Citation : THOMAS -v- BASS [2003] WADC 134
File No : CIV 2406 of 2001
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Torts - Negligence - Causation - Admission of new evidence - Assessment of damages for non-pecuniary loss under Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act - Assessment of damages for future economic loss at general law - Once and for all rule
Legislation:
Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW), s 79
Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA), s 3C
Result:
Appeal allowed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr D R Clyne
Respondent : Mr J R Brooksby
Solicitors:
Appellant : Friedman Lurie Singh & D'Angelo
Respondent : Greenland Brooksby
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Doherty v Liverpool District Hospital (1991) 22 NSWLR 284
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
Mulholland v Mitchell [1971] AC 666
Southgate v Waterford (1990) 21 NSWLR 427
Wylde v 'Arriaza, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970359; 23 July 1997
(Page…
Continue reading Thomas v Bass
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Thomas v Bass [2006] WASCA 59
- Case
- [2006] WASCA 59
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Thomas v Bass, the respondent sought damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The trial judge found that the appellant was negligent, and the respondent was entitled to damages. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal from the appellant. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge's assessment of damages for non-pecuniary loss was correct under the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act, and whether the assessment of damages for future economic loss at general law was also correct.
The court held that the trial judge had erred in assessing the respondent's non-pecuniary damages. The court found that the trial judge had not applied the correct principles in determining the appropriate amount of damages for non-pecuniary loss. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in assessing the respondent's future economic loss. The court held that the trial judge had not taken into account all of the relevant factors in determining the appropriate amount of damages for future economic loss. The court found that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the respondent's age and the likelihood of future employment opportunities.
The court held that the trial judge's assessment of damages was incorrect and ordered a new trial to determine the appropriate amount of damages. The court also held that the trial judge's finding of negligence on the part of the appellant was correct, and that the appellant was liable for the respondent's injuries. The court held that the respondent was entitled to damages for his injuries, but that the amount of damages had not been correctly assessed by the trial judge. The court ordered that the case be remitted to the trial judge for a new assessment of damages.
The court held that the trial judge had erred in assessing the respondent's non-pecuniary damages. The court found that the trial judge had not applied the correct principles in determining the appropriate amount of damages for non-pecuniary loss. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in assessing the respondent's future economic loss. The court held that the trial judge had not taken into account all of the relevant factors in determining the appropriate amount of damages for future economic loss. The court found that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the respondent's age and the likelihood of future employment opportunities.
The court held that the trial judge's assessment of damages was incorrect and ordered a new trial to determine the appropriate amount of damages. The court also held that the trial judge's finding of negligence on the part of the appellant was correct, and that the appellant was liable for the respondent's injuries. The court held that the respondent was entitled to damages for his injuries, but that the amount of damages had not been correctly assessed by the trial judge. The court ordered that the case be remitted to the trial judge for a new assessment of damages.
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.