A J LUCAS CONSTRUCTIONS PTY. LTD v RAYMOND SIDNEY HARLAND [1991] NSWCA 1

A J LUCAS CONSTRUCTIONS PTY. LTD v RAYMOND SIDNEY HARLAND

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

SAMUELS, CLARKE and HANDLEY JJA 14 August 1991, 14 August 1991 [1991] NSWCA 1

JURY VERDICT — Personal injuries — Review by appellate court only possible where verdict out of all proportion to circumstances of case — Failure by defendant to call evidence in respect of comparable earnings. Held Appellant had failed to establish that the verdict appealed from was one which no reasonable jury could have awarded.

Precision Plastics Pty Ltd v Demir (1975) 132 CLR 362 Progress and Properties Ltd v Craft (1976) 135 CLR 651

Handley JA This is an appeal by the defendant from the verdict of a jury in anaction for personal injuries arising out of an industrial accident. The action proceeded as an assessment only and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $620,000. The defendant has appealed on the ground that the damages awarded were excessive. It elected to call no evidence at the trial. The nature and extent of the plaintiffs injuries were not in dispute and Mr. Gross QC who appeared for the appellant in this Court, but who had not appeared at the trial, properly conceded that the jury were fully entitled on the evidence to conclude that, as a result of the accident, the plaintiff had totally lost his capacity for work. Out of pocket expenses were agreed and there was little room for dispute as to the future medical expenses.

The areas of dispute on the appeal related to the amounts the jury were entitled to award for past and future economic loss and general damages.

The principles which must guide an appellate court asked to review an award of damages by a jury on the ground that they are excessive are in doubt. They were succinctly stated in Precision Plastics Pty Ltd v Demir (1975) 132 CLR 362 at 369 by Gibbs J. The appellate court will only interfere if it arrives at the conclusion that the damages are so large as to be unreasonable and so excessive that no jury could reasonably have awarded them, and out of all proportion to the circumstances of the case.