Damages—Calculation—Personal injuries—Loss of earning capacity—Assessment of present value of future loss—Allowance for inflation, tax and changes in wages—Discount rate.
Decisions
December 16. The following written judgments were delivered: - GIBBS C.J. AND WILSON J. These two appeals require the Court to consider the manner in which courts in Australia should approach the everyday task of assessing damages for personal injuries in cases in which the plaintiff, by reason of his injuries, has suffered a loss or impairment of his capacity to earn wages in the future, or will require in the future to be supplied with goods and services for which he will have to pay. (at p409)
2. The first appeal, Todorovic v. Waller is brought from the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. In that case the plaintiff (the present respondent), a man aged thirty-five at the date of the trial, had suffered brain damage which rendered him virtually unemployable. The learned trial judge, who decided the case after the decision in Atlas Tiles Ltd. v. Briers (1978) 145 CLR 625 but before Cullen v. Trappell (1980) 146 CLR 1 , took gross rather than net figures in assessing the damages attributable to the respondent's loss of earning capacity. Also, in the assessment of damages for the loss of certain superannuation benefits, the learned trial judge received and applied the evidence of an actuary who had worked on the basis that each year the respondent's salary would increase by annual increments of about 7 per cent - that assumption appears to have been made as the result of advice received from "a panel of economists". The Court of Appeal held that the learned trial judge fell into error in these two respects, and that it was accordingly necessary for them to make a reassessment of the award. In so doing, they held, after a consideration of Barrell Insurances Pty. Ltd. v. Pennant Hills Restaurants Pty. Ltd. (1981) 145 CLR 625 , that future inflation is to be disregarded in estimating the level at which future expenditure and future wage losses will be incurred, but that it is proper to take it into account in determining the rate at which a present lump sum assessed as compensation for such future expenditure and future losses should be discounted, and that the fairest and simplest practice for courts to follow in achieving this end is to award compensation for future losses and future outgoings on an undiscounted footing. They further held that the principle of full compensation requires that notice should be taken of the tax attracted by the investment income earned by the lump sum. They went on to say that if a zero discount rate were adopted, that would be inconsistent with making any allowance for tax on notional income, and since in the present case no attempt was…
Grounds of appeal
[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 Todorovic v Waller
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Todorovic v Waller [1981] HCA 72
Case
[1981] HCA 72
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal in *Todorovic v Waller*. The dispute concerned the assessment of damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, Mr. Todorovic, in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant, Mr. Waller, was the driver of the other vehicle involved in the collision.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the damages awarded to the plaintiff for future economic loss should be discounted to present value. Specifically, the court had to determine the appropriate discount rate to be applied to future losses, considering the principles of assessing damages for personal injury under Australian law.
The High Court, by majority, held that the appropriate discount rate for future economic loss should be 3% per annum. This rate was determined to be a reasonable reflection of the real rate of return on investments after accounting for inflation. The court affirmed the principle that damages for future economic loss should be awarded on a lump sum basis, discounted to their present value, to compensate the plaintiff for the loss of earning capacity. The reasoning emphasized the need for a consistent and predictable approach to discounting, balancing the interests of both the injured party and the defendant.