GARY ALAM v MEMNUNA KADRIC SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL CLARKE JA, MEAGHER JA and HANDLEY JA 3 November 1993 [1993] NSWCA 4 FACTS Appellant (defendant below) argued that the discount rate applied to the future economic loss component of a motor vehicle accident award was too low. HELD: No question of principle was involved. The overall quantum of damages was reasonable in the circumstances, especially taking into account the overly conservative calculation of past economic loss. Clarke JA. I will ask Meagher JA to give the first judgment. Meagher JA. This is an appeal by the defendant against an award of damages made by his Honour the late Judge Tolhurst in favour of the plaintiff in the amount of $245,968.86, which his Honour made on 15 December 1989. It relates to a motor car accident which took place on 12 Aguust 1983. The verdict components are as follows. The general damages were $28,000.00 as to which $23,000.00 related to the past and $5,000.00 to the future; interest thereon of $10,250; and out-of-pocket expenses of $15,723.00, which leaves past and future economic loss at some figure in excess of $191,000.00. The precise details do not appear in his Honour's judgment but apparantely were calculated after the trial in accordance with a formula which was laid down during the trial. Initially, the appeal centred on the difficulties with his Honour's arithmatic but those difficulties have all evaporated. The sole question of interest which then remained is as to the amount for future economic loss and, in particular, the amount by which it should be discounted. Mr Tonner in a careful argument has pointed out that the past economic loss was discounted by twenty per cent and future economic loss was discounted by his Honour at twenty five per cent. The argument ran that if the past figure was correct — and there was no appeal as to this — then the discount for future economic loss should be more. In my view, this argument ought not be accepted particularly as it assumes the correctness of the past discount. I am of the view that the discount for past economic loss was manifestly too high and, in so far as the discount for future economic loss may be perhaps a little too low, that is amply compensated for by the deficiency as to the past because the overall verdict given by his Honour in favour of the plaintiff seems to me perfectly justified. In this regard it must be remembered that his Honour was — and with justification — very impressed by the plaintiff, both as a witness of truth and as having an excellent work record. Indeed, her work record was such that she gave the impression that if any work was available for her anywhere she would find it. I would not disturb his Honour's award and I think the appeal should be dismissed with costs. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS I have not failed to notice there was also an appeal as to interest on general damages. That item should not betaken into account, in my view, because no other aspect of the appeal has been successful. Clarke JA. I agree. Handley JA. I also agree. Clarke JA. The order of the Court is the appeal is dismissed with costs. 10 Appeal dismissed with costs. Counsel for the appellant: R C TONNER Solicitors for the appellant: P ANDRESAKIS 45 Counsel for the respondent: D McGOVERN/ M CLARKE Solicitors for the respondent: GALLUZO GOLOTTA ANDRIANO