Vulin v Cox

Miroslava Dobroslava Vulin (the plaintiff) appealed to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory against the quantum of general damages awarded by the trial judge in a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident. The trial judge had awarded the plaintiff $12,000 for general damages, as part of a total award of $119,875.21. The plaintiff, a young woman, had sustained soft tissue injuries and nerve root irritation, which significantly impacted her ability to continue her employment as a hairdresser.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was the appropriate approach for counsel to assist a trial judge in determining the quantum of general damages, particularly when the judge sought guidance on a range of non-appellable awards. This arose in circumstances where the parties had settled the appeal, agreeing to an increased total judgment sum that effectively raised the general damages component to $31,500. The Court noted that counsel had been reticent to provide the trial judge with a range of damages when requested, and the appeal judgment was being published to clarify the professional duty in such situations.

The Court reasoned that while there is no tariff for general damages in personal injury cases, and each case must be decided on its own facts, it is appropriate for judges to seek and for counsel to provide assistance by identifying a range of non-appellable awards from comparable cases. The Court referred to High Court decisions in *Planet Fisheries Proprietary Limited v La Rosa* and *Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Limited*, and a previous ACT Full Court decision in *Hebditch v Slaven Motors Pty Ltd*, to explain that while a rigid tariff is impermissible, reference to trends in recent, reasonably comparable assessments can serve as a guide. The Court emphasised that it is counsel's duty to honestly and responsibly assist the Court when such assistance is sought, and that this duty should not be overridden by instructions from insurers.

Following the settlement, the appeal was upheld, and judgment was substituted for the plaintiff in the sum of $151,375.21, with costs. The Court published its reasons to provide guidance to the legal profession on the proper role of counsel in assisting trial judges with the assessment of general damages.