OWENS V. BOSWELL

ORAIJudgment delivered a

IN| THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REASCWS FOR JUDGMENT

SIDNEY. cscccccecsscseenene ombHURSDAY...21.. AUGUST..A975 un cccnenncenene

RM73/30063

OWENS

BOSWELL

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

TO

JUDGMENT

ORAL

OWENS

BOSWELL

BARWICK C.J.

OWENS

BOSWELL

It seems to me that the Court of Appeal in this ease has been alert to the need for restraint on the part of an appellate court in dealing with an appeal upon what really is a question of fact, particularly when it is a question as to the amount of damages awarded by a court of first instance.

No error of law is apparent in the Court's reasons for judgment. The Court thought the award of damages so inadequate, so disproportionate to the injuries and their consequences as to manifest error on the part of the trial judge which called for correction.

The question now before us is whether the Court of Appeal was unreasonable in taking that view. Whatever I might think myself as to what ought to be the proper award to have been made, and that is of course not a question now before us, I am unable to conclude that the Court of

Appeal could not reasonably take the view that the award

of the trial judge of general damages was quite disproportionate to the respondent's injuries and their consequences, physical, including pain and suffering, cosmetic and economic.

Unless it could be said that the Court of Appeal took an unreasonable view of the relationship of the award of damages to those injuries, no error of law would appear and the Court's view should not be disturbed.

Consequently, I would dismiss this appeal.

JUDGMENT.

Cor ar)

OWENS

Vv.

BOSWELL

MoTIERNAN J.

OWENS

ve.

BOSWELL

| I am of the same opinion.

JUDGMENT

(ORAL)

PETER MICHAEL OWENS

RUTH BOSWELL

STEPHEN J.

PETER MICHAEL OWENS

RUTH BOSWELL

I agree.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

OWENS

ve

BOSWELL

MASON J.

» OWENS

Vv.