NSW Caselaw
GIO vy HAMAD
SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
MAHONEY (1); PRIESTLEY (2) and SHELLER (3) JJA 1 April 1992, 16 April 1992
[1992] NSWCA 91
APPEAL — DAMAGES APPEAL — damages — quantum — respondent injures back in motor accident — subsequent back incident — appellant argues; (1) medical opinion evidence did not consider effect of subsequent incident leaving unrebutted inference it was independent cause of some injuries; (2) unsafe to rely on medical evidence not based on facts substantially proved; (3) wrong considerations taken into account in assessing (i) general damages, and (ii), past and future economic loss; (4) statutory amendment precluded interest on past general damages. Held: (1) evidence insufficient to draw such inference; (2) medical evidence sufficiently clear; (3) no mistake in arriving at reasonable damages awards; (4) mistake as to interest allowance — appeal upheld only to extent necessary to correct mistake about interest.
ORDERS 1. Appeal upheld. 2. Judgment set aside; in its place judgment entered for $254,185.84 as from 12 December 1989. 3. Appellant to bear respondent's costs.
Mahoney JA I agree with the judgment of Priestley JA.
Priestley JA This appeal by the GIO, the defendant below, against the amount ofa District Court judgment for the plaintiff for personal injuries for which the GIO admitted liability, raises one principal, and various subsidiary, points.
The plaintiff was injured in a motor car accident on 4 November 1985. He was then twenty-five. From the time he had come to Australia nearly five years before he had been in regular work with the one employer, Union Carbide. After the accident, he continued to work for that employer, but because of physical problems became unable to do the work and was dismissed in 1987.
The plaintiff's damages claim was heard by her Honour Acting Judge Beazley on 16 and 17 November 1989. On 22 December 1989 her Honour published reasons for judgment and awarded the plaintiff $257.935.84 arrived at as follows:
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