JAMIESON v PARKS and ANOR [1995] NSWCA 215

JAMIESON v PARKS and ANOR SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

SHELLER, POWELL and COLE JJA 1 September 1995, 1 September 1995 [1995] NSWCA 215

Appeal — application to adduce further evidence — application refused — Radnedge v GIO (1987) 9 NSWLR 235 at 251-1 appld — no question of principle.

Cole JA The appellant, Carol Jamieson, on 4 February 1984 was the driver of a motor vehicle stationary at traffic lights. When the lights changed the second respondent, who was driving a vehicle which was stationary behind the appellant's vehicle, took her foot off the brake with the consequence that her vehicle struck the rear of the appellant's vehicle. It was not until 31 October 1989, that is five years and nine months after the accident, that the appellant sued the respondents in negligence. The trial took place in April 1993. In a judgment delivered 28 April 1993 O'Reilly DCJ found in favour of the appellant and awarded damages in the sum of $31,678. The appellant presented to the trial judge as a most unfortunate person. She alleged a soft tissue injury resulting from the accident. She had gross emotional difficulties. She had suffered from perceived sexual harassment in her employment post accident. She had suffered tenosynovitis post accident. She asserted severe neck and back problems in addition to significant psychiatric disabilities.

Before the trial judge there was debate concerning the true extent of the physical and psychiatric condition of the appellant and, in particular, the extent to which any such injuries so found were caused by the comparatively minor motor vehicle accident. In this debate, apart from the evidence of the appellant, there was tendered by the parties medical reports from some 20 doctors.

The material findings of the trial judge, in addition to his finding that immediately after the accident the appellant took two days off work, are encapsulated in the following passages: "Mr Rewell has presented his case with courage and tenacity but he had a terribly difficult task confronting him. The plaintiff had worked for years post-accident. She had a great array of emotional difficulties. The evidence of actual treatment relating to the motor car injuries was very brief. There is the problem with the perception of sexual harassment in the work place. There is the problem with increasing workload and the development of tenosynovitis over a period of some years, none of which has any relationship to the motor car accident as it seems to me. It has been proved that the plaintiff apparently settled her Worker's Compensation claim. She still has outstanding the matter in the Court of Appeal. She has seen literally scores of medical practitioners over the years. She has apparently an array of legal representation and I am sure that she believes that her neck and back problems still continue and they are all caused by the GIO's driver. but I am afraid that I have not accepted that proposition."! And later: "I make it plain in case this judgment needs to be