GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE v LAZAR [1991] NSWCA 123

GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE v LAZAR SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

PRIESTLEY, CLARKE and HANDLEY JJA 18 June 1991, 18 June 1991

[1991] NSWCA 123

DAMAGES — interest on non-economic pre-trial damages not assessed at commercial rate (MBP (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic (1991) 65 ALJR 203) — future economic loss — likely retirement age estimated by reasonable conclusion from material before court -costs.

Priestley JA This is an appeal in a personal injuries claim. It is unnecessaryto mention the facts of the matter in any detail because there is only one live issue in the appeal and it is possible to deal with that very shortly. Judgment was given in two sets of proceedings by Enderby J on 21 June 1990. One set of proceedings was against the Government Insurance Office and the other against individual defendants. Liability was admitted in both proceedings.

Because of the judgment handed down in the High Court this year in MBP (SA) Pty Limited v Gogic (1991) 65 ALJR 203 and because subsequently to that judgment the defendants who had earlier caused a Notice of Appeal to be filed on various grounds, sought to raise the Gogic point, the plaintiff/respondent sensibly agreed that there should be an adjustment to the damages awarded in each case downwards to reflect the position declared by the High Court in Gogic.

When the appeal came on for hearing today the court was told that all the original grounds of appeal in both matters had been abandoned and that new grounds of appeal were proposed which the respondent in each case consented to being used in replacement of the original grounds. The first two grounds raised the Gogic point. The third ground raised the point that was argued; that point arose because there had been a claim for future economic loss in both cases. The trial judge had included in his award of damages an amount for future economic loss in which he took as one factor the probability that the plaintiff/respondent would have worked until ages sixty-two and a half. The point of the appeal was that there was no evidence to support that finding of the trial judge.