High Court of Australia
ORIGINAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Judgment delivered at... SYAMCY. oon
©. M. Houston, Govt Print, Melb, on... Thursday... 5th..December...19!
3973/88
WALTER SHAFRON
Appeal dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
WALTER SHAFRON
MARION RAYE
DIXON C.d. WEDB J. TAYTOR g.
nn
WALTER SHAFRON
MARION RAYE WEBSTER
JUDGMENT DIXON C.J. WEBR o.
TAYLOR J.
We have given careful consideration to the award of damages in this case. It was, we think, high but, on the whole, we do not think it was excessive in such a sense that a court of appeal would be justified in interfering with it.
The point made by counsel for the appellant that ¢ learned trial judge omitted consideration of or gave inadequate effect to the contingency of remarriage on the part of the respondent is not made out to our satisfaction. Moreover it is, we think, important in the present case to observe that the deceased was on the threshold of a career which gave scope for such talents as he possessed and the case is not one where he was in a settled occupation with amore or less fixed earning capacity and with prospects fairly well defined and capable of approximate assessment. A consideration of the evidence has led us to the conclusion that there are sufficiently important imponderables in the case to make it impossible for us to intervene. The appeal
will therefore be dismissed with costs.
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