High Court of Australia
0.7168/51
J. 4 Gourley, Gort. Print, Men,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ORAL i Judgment delivered at. Sydney
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
PORTER
'DIXON C.J.
EcTIERNAN J.
EIT J. TAYLOR J.
ANSLOW
ve PORTER DIXON C.J. MoTIERNAN J. JUDGMENT (ORAL) oe RITTO J. TAYLOR J.
We are all of opinion that this appeal should be dismissed. It is an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales by a majority refusing to order a new trial on the ground that the damages are excessive. In the action, which was one for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, injuries which were very severe, the jury awarded the sum of £12,000. There were no special damages in the ordinary sense, but. the 812,000 evidently included compensation for the loss of earnings which he might have expected to receive in his occupation.
The plaintiff was a Warrant Officer in the Australian Army and at the time of the accident he was 53 years of age. The accident occurred five years ago . yesterday and the litigation has slowly reached this Court. The writ was issued on 8th September 1950; the trial took place on the 3rd, 4th and 5th November 1952, and the Full Court heard the new trial application on 6th August 1953. The notice of appeal to this Court was given three weeks later and now to-day this appeal is to be decided.
There appears to have been a question of liability in dispute which the jury finally disposed of. The litigation has otherwise been concerned only with the
question of quantum of damages. The law relating to that
Somewhat difficult question has been laid down by this Court on more than one occasion and we do not propose to attempt to add anything to the statements of principle that have been made. Those principles are concerned with the province of the jury in assessing damages and with the control the Courts have exercised over verdicts. In the end the question for the Court comes down to the inquiry, simply formulated, whether the assessment of damages made by the jury is, in all the circumstances, such as no reasonable man could reach. It is from that point of view that we have examined the facts of the present case.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate