BARNEWALL V. BAKOF

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered at... gg ony oon pipececn-oneveveeneenennnnne war

on... henday 28th -Pebruary i972

BARN #WALL

Ve

BAKOF

Appeal allowed with costs, Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria set aside and in lieu thereof order that the appeal to that

Court be dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

CORAL)

BARNSWALL

BARWICK C.J.

Ve

BAKOF.

The appellant, at the time he received serious injuries as a result of a road accident, was one of three brothers conducting what appears to have been a self-service food and grocery shop. Prior to engaging in this enterprise the appellant had worked for some years asa carpenter, although he had not been through an apprenticeship or any particular training for that occupation.

He suffered very considerable injuries in the accident. For a time thereafter he continued some activity in the food and grocery business. However, that business was sol¢ perhaps sooner than it might otherwise have been, due in part at least to the consequences of his injuries. It was a busine: which had been started by the appellant and his brothers and which, having regard to its sale price, had developed a conside) goodwill.

He sued the respondent, claiming as special damage, a sum for the cost of employing labour in the business

to replace some effort on his own part which he could no longe:

make, and a sum calculated at $100 a week for a period of

2.

weeks elapsing between the sale of the business and the date of the trial. No claim was made for any loss of profits or of goodwill of the said business due to the injuries received. No evidence was given at the trial on which the cost of employing substitute labour could be quantified, nor was evidence given of the profits actually earned in the said business.

The jury, with whom the action was tried, returned a verdict for the appellant for $28,000 for damages, including special damage. The respondent appealed to the Full Court on tl grounds, amongst other grounds, that the verdict was excessive and that there had been an inadequate direction by the trial judge as to the application to the facts of relevant principles of law as to theassessment of damages.