NSW Caselaw
GIRLOCK (MFG) PTY LTD v CAPRION SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
MEAGHER, BEAZLEY JJA and Simos AJA 16 August 1996, 16 August 1996 [1996] NSWCA 217
JURY VERDICT — Whether issue ought to have been left to jury — whether award of damages by jury excessive
Beazley JA
This is an appeal from a jury verdict given in the District Court on 1 December 1995. The case before the jury was one whereby it was alleged that the plaintiff had suffered two heart attacks in the course of his employment. There was a dispute as to whether the heart attacks were causally linked to the employment. It is apparent from the jury's verdict in favour of the plaintiff, who is the respondent in these proceedings, that the jury accepted the medical evidence to the effect that there was the necessary causal connection. There is no appeal from the liability aspect of the jury's verdict. There are only two points raised on the appeal. First, whether the likelihood or possibility of the respondent receiving a redundancy payment ought to have been left to the jury, and the further issue as to whether the award of damages made by the jury was excessive.
The respondent was born in 1926 in Mauritius. He came to Australia in 1968 and commenced working with the appellant in that year. The nature of his work was initially as a labourer. He was promoted during the course of his employment to the position of leading hand setter, and from time to time acted as foreman when the foreman was on leave. He had been employed with the appellant for a period of about eighteen years prior to the cessation of his employment on 28 January 1986. At that time he was aged almost fifty-eight years.
At the time of ceasing work with the appellant, the respondent was paid an amount of just over seven thousand dollars. This was described in a letter written by the appellant to the respondent as comprising two amounts - the first an amount of over six and a half thousand dollars by way of termination pay and an amount of about six hundred and forty dollars by way of normal pay.
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