SAFI v ADOUNI and ANOR [1997] NSWCA 271

SAFI v ADOUNI and ANOR

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

SHELLER and STEIN JJA, and SHEPPARD AJA 8 August 1997, 7 October 1997 [1997] NSWCA 271

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT — Damages for personal injury — Amount awarded plaintiff in running down action claimed to be manifestly too low — Question of fact — Consideration of large quantity of lay and medical evidence — Medical evidence conflicting — Sufficiency of award for economic loss — No question of principle.

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT — The appellant, the plaintiff in the action, was injured in a motor vehicle accident when six years of age. Claims were made by his family and by friends of the family that he had suffered intellectual impairment as a consequence of the injuries which he sustained, particularly a fractured skull. The accident occurred in 1983. The action was commenced shortly afterwards. Thereafter, the appellant was seen by a large number of doctors and other medical specialists over a period of many years. There was conflicting medical evidence as to whether he was intellectually impaired, as to the degree of any intellectual impairment from which he suffered, and importantly, as to whether any intellectual impairment suffered by him was the consequence of a head injury suffered in the accident The trial Judge concluded that the intellectual impairment suffered by the appellant was not caused by the accident but was slightly exacerbated by it. This affected the already limited economic capacity which the plaintiff, 19 years of age when the matter came to trial, had at the time of the accident. His Honour awarded $50,000 for pain, suffering, loss of amenity of life, and anxiety and depression, most of which was for the past. He awarded interest of $10,400 on so much of the sum of $50,000 ($40,000) as represented the past, and $6,000 for past and future economic loss. There was a question, accepting his Honour's findings at face value, whether the amount awarded for economic loss was manifestly too low. It was held that it was. The amount of $6,000 was increased to $30,000 with the consequence that the judgment in favour of the appellant in the sum of $67,052 (which included $652 for out-of-pocket expenses) was increased to $91,052. The Court made remarks critical of the state of the appeal books and of the written submissions lodged on behalf of the appellant. It also commented on the absence of a chronology.