WANLESS -v- SARKISJAN [2001] WASCA 332
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 332 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | 02/11/2001 | ||
| Case No: | FUL:60/2001 | 4 SEPTEMBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ TEMPLEMAN J McKECHNIE J | 4/09/01 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BRENDAN LEA WANLESS HOVSEP SARKISJAN |
Catchwords: | Motor vehicles Damages Assessment of witnesses Duty of appellate court No new principles |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1991) 171 CLR 167 Browne v Dunn (1894) R (HL) 67 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Jones v Hyde (1989) 63 ALJR 349 Rosenberg v Percival (2000) 75 ALJR 734 Sarkisjan v Wanless [2001] WADC 76 State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306 Bowen v Tuttle (1989) Aust Torts Reports 810430 Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1 Lawson v Flavel [2001] WASCA 272 Sela v EPT Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950686; 14 December 1995 Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422 Thomas v O'Shea (1989) Aust Torts Rep 80251 Uranerz (Aust) Pty Ltd v Hale (1980) 30 ALR 193 Voulis v Kozary (1975) 180 CLR 177 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : WANLESS -v- SARKISJAN [2001] WASCA 332 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- TEMPLEMAN J
McKECHNIE J
- Appellant (Defendant)
AND
HOVSEP SARKISJAN
Respondent (Plaintiff)
Catchwords:
Motor vehicles - Damages - Assessment of witnesses - Duty of appellate court - No new principles
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal dismissed
(Page 2)
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant (Defendant) : Mr J R Brooksby
Respondent (Plaintiff) : Mr E M Heenan QC & Mr G Droppert
Solicitors:
Appellant (Defendant) : Greenland Brooksby
Respondent (Plaintiff) : James McManus & Associates
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1991) 171 CLR 167
Browne v Dunn (1894) R (HL) 67
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Jones v Hyde (1989) 63 ALJR 349
Rosenberg v Percival (2000) 75 ALJR 734
Sarkisjan v Wanless [2001] WADC 76
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306
Case(s) also cited:
Bowen v Tuttle (1989) Aust Torts Reports 810430
Chambers v Jobling (1986) 7 NSWLR 1
Lawson v Flavel [2001] WASCA 272
Sela v EPT Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950686; 14 December 1995
Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422
Thomas v O'Shea (1989) Aust Torts Rep 80251
Uranerz (Aust) Pty Ltd v Hale (1980) 30 ALR 193
Voulis v Kozary (1975) 180 CLR 177
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
(Page 3)
- JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Continue reading Wanless v Sarkisjan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Wanless v Sarkisjan [2001] WASCA 332
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 332
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Wanless v Sarkisjan involved the appellant, Wanless, appealing against the assessment of damages awarded to the respondent, Sarkisjan, in a motor vehicle accident. The respondent claimed damages for injuries sustained in a collision between his vehicle and the appellant’s vehicle. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the trial judge assessed the damages based on the evidence presented.
The legal issues before the court included the proper assessment of damages for personal injury and the extent of the duty of an appellate court in reviewing such assessments. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the trial judge had erred in law or made a mistake of fact that warranted a different assessment of damages.
The court held that the trial judge had not erred in assessing the damages. The appellate court noted that it was not its role to substitute its own view of the matter for that of the trial judge unless there was a clear error of judgment. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered all the evidence, including the testimonies of witnesses and medical experts, and had provided sufficient reasoning for the damages awarded. The appellate court concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge's assessment.
As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original damages awarded to Sarkisjan were upheld. The court's decision emphasised the limited role of an appellate court in reviewing the assessment of damages and the deference owed to the trial judge's determination based on the evidence presented.
The legal issues before the court included the proper assessment of damages for personal injury and the extent of the duty of an appellate court in reviewing such assessments. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the trial judge had erred in law or made a mistake of fact that warranted a different assessment of damages.
The court held that the trial judge had not erred in assessing the damages. The appellate court noted that it was not its role to substitute its own view of the matter for that of the trial judge unless there was a clear error of judgment. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered all the evidence, including the testimonies of witnesses and medical experts, and had provided sufficient reasoning for the damages awarded. The appellate court concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge's assessment.
As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original damages awarded to Sarkisjan were upheld. The court's decision emphasised the limited role of an appellate court in reviewing the assessment of damages and the deference owed to the trial judge's determination based on the evidence presented.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.