CAMILLERI v ALLEN SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL Hope, PRIESTLEY and CLARKE JJA 17 March 1988 [1988] NSWCA 19 Appeal — reliance in reasons for judgment on evidence not before the Court which related to plaintiff's credibility and to causal connection between accident and injury — denial of natural justice — not inevitable that result at trial or upon any new trial should be the same — judgment set aside and new trial ordered. ORDERS (1) Appeal allowed; (2) Judgment below set aside; (3) New trial ordered limited to damages; (4) Costs of the first trial to be costs in the new trial; (5) Respondent to pay the costs of the appeal and to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act. Hope JA On 12 May 1979 the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he claimed to have suffered injuries. Proceedings by him to recover damages in respect of those injuries came before Master Sharpe in February and May 1986. Liability was admitted and the only issue before the Master was the quantum of damages. On 30 July 1986 the Master gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $15,966.20. This sum was made up in this way:- Wage loss until 23 June 1980 $ 2,268.60 Out-of-pockets to 28 February 1980 together with 547.60 some specified later out-of-pockets General damages (which for the purposes of interest 6,500.00 calculations, the Master divided as to to pre-judgment damage and as to 1,000.00 to future damage) 7,500.00 Interest on general damages 5,250.00 Interest on wage loss 400.00 Total interest $ 5,650.00 There was no award for future economic loss. The plaintiff was born on 6 September 1948. He was a married man with four children at the time of the accident. He was then employed by a firm called Zacuba Pty Limited and he had been employed there since 17 November 1975. That company manufactured house bricks and the Plaintiff's occupation with it was described as a lubrication attendant. The plaintiffs claims as to injuries may be described as 3 low back injury, whiplash injury and what I would assume to be associated with that injury, cervical pain, and a number of other injuries which were recorded in the records of the hospital to which he went following the accident. Those injuries were described by the Master in these terms:- 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS (1) Complaints of headache; (2) Pain in the right hip; (3) Lacerations observed to the head; (4) Grazes to the right side of rib, right hip, right elbow, left and right hands and left and right legs. The plaintiff claimed that although many of his injuries ceased to trouble him after some time, at least the low back injury had continued to the trial and was continuing to cause him pain and disability. He also claimed that the whiplash injury was continuing to cause some trouble. Master Sharpe made these findings. In relation to the credit of the plaintiff he said that he took the view that unless the plaintiff was corroborated or the probabilities strongly favoured facts necessary to establish matters upon which he bore the onus, he could not be accepted. In relation to the cervical pain, the Master said that the plaintiffs description of his problems was not accepted and that he found that they had been grossly exaggerated. As regards the low back injury, having made some suggestions as to the cause of that injury - if it did exist - the Master held that his firm conclusion, having regard to the available medical evidence and his non-acceptance of the plaintiff, was that the defendant should not be liable for so much of the plaintiff's damage as is related to any symptoms he had suffered from the low back. The effect of that finding was that whatever low back problem the plaintiff may have had, and I think the Master accepted that he had some such trouble, that trouble was not to be attributed in any way to the accident. As regards the whiplash and associated injuries, as I said, the Master felt that the plaintiff was exaggerating and that his description of the problems could not be accepted. Nonetheless he did suffer some such injury but any effect of it seemed to have terminated by mid-1980. The Master found that the plaintiff HOPE JA: The orders of the Court are as I proposed.