Woolworths Ltd v Lawlor

Case [2004] NSWCA 209
CITATION: Woolworths Limited & Anor. v. Lawlor [2004] NSWCA 209 revised - 13/08/2004
HEARING DATE(S): 24/05/2004
JUDGMENT DATE:
24 June 2004
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Hodgson JA at 36; Tobias JA at 37
DECISION: 1. Grant an extension of time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal; 2. Direct that the appellants file a Notice of Appeal within 3 days of the date of the making of these Orders; 3. Appeal dismissed; 4. The appellants to pay the respondent's costs
CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES - Assessment - Non-economic loss - Need to demonstrate appealable error - Damages for gratuitous attendant care services - s.15 of Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) - Construction - Meaning of "solely because of the injury to which the damages relate".
LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
CASES CITED: Jones v. Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81
Reece v. Reece (1994) 19 MVR 103

PARTIES :

 Woolworths Limited (First Appellant)
Jones Lang Lasalle (NSW) Pty. Limited (Second Appellant)
Hilda Lawlor (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40673/2003
COUNSEL: J. Maconachie QC (Appellants)
M. Cranitch SC/M. Inglis (Opponent)
SOLICITORS: Herbert Geer & Rundle (Appellants)
Commins Hendriks (Wagga Wagga) (Respondent)
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 78/2002
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : 		Sidis DCJ


                          CA 40673/2003
                          DC 78/2002

                          BEAZLEY JA
                          HODGSON JA
                          TOBIAS JA

                          24 June 2004
WOOLWORTHS LIMITED & ANOR. v. LAWLOR
Headnote

1 The respondent fell due to the malfunction of a moving walkway in a shopping complex owned and occupied by the appellants respectively for which she claimed damages. At trial liability was admitted by the appellants and the matter proceeded for assessment of damages only.

2 The appellants appealed against the award of non-economic loss, assessed at 30% of a most extreme case; and against the award for past and future domestic assistance.

HELD (per Beazley JA, Hodgson and Tobias JJA agreeing):

3 (i) The assessment of non-economic loss is an evaluative process in respect of which minds may differ. The award made by the trial judge was not outside an appropriate discretionary range.


      (ii) In order for the trial judge’s assessment of non-economic loss to be disturbed an appellant must demonstrate appealable error.

      (iii) The trial judge took into account the extent of household services provided by the respondent’s husband for his own benefit and only awarded damages for services that would not have been provided but for the injury as required by s.15(2)(c) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).

      (iv) On the evidence the need for the attendant care services provided by the respondent’s husband for which an award was made, arose solely because of the injury sustained by the respondent to the award made in accordance with s.15(2)(b).

      (v) (Obiter) Where the need for attendant care services has more than one cause then, without deciding the preferred construction of s.15(2)(b), damages may be awarded for that portion that is attributable solely to the accident provided the requirements of the Act are otherwise satisfied.


      1. Grant an extension of time…

Continue reading Woolworths Ltd v Lawlor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Woolworths Ltd v Lawlor [2004] NSWCA 209
Case
[2004] NSWCA 209
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woolworths Ltd (appellant) appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the District Court of New South Wales that awarded damages to Mr Lawlor (respondent) for injuries sustained in an incident at a Woolworths supermarket. The primary dispute concerned the assessment of damages, specifically relating to gratuitous attendant care services.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine the proper construction of section 15 of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), which governs claims for gratuitous attendant care services. The central question was the meaning of the phrase "solely because of the injury to which the damages relate" within that section, and whether the respondent's need for attendant care services arose solely from the injuries sustained in the incident.

The Court reasoned that the phrase "solely because of the injury" required the need for care to be exclusively attributable to the injury, without any pre-existing condition or other factor contributing to that need. Applying this construction, the Court found that the respondent's need for attendant care services was not solely due to the injuries sustained in the incident, as there was evidence of pre-existing conditions that also contributed to his need for such care.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the interpretation that section 15 of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW) imposes a strict requirement that the need for gratuitous attendant care must be solely and directly caused by the injury for which damages are being claimed. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant an extension of time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal; 2. Direct that the appellants file a Notice of Appeal within 3 days of the date of the making of these Orders; 3. Appeal dismissed; 4. The appellants to pay the respondent's costs

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.