Romeo v Della Franca [1999] NSWCA 241

New South Wales Court of Appeal CITATION : Romeo v Della Franca [1999] NSWCA 241 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40939/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 5 July 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 5 July 1999

PARTIES : Anna Romeo v Beverley Della Franca JUDGMENT OF : Meagher JA at 1; Cole AJA at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : DC 4/97 at Griffith LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Delaney DCJ

COUNSEL : Appellant: J.D. Hislop QC/ J. De Berg Respondent: D. Ronzani SOLICITORS : Appellant: Moray & Agnew Respondent: Cater & Blumer CATCHWORDS : No statement of principle. ACTS CITED : Motor Accidents Act, ss 70A, 79. DECISION : Leave to appeal refused; Summons dismissed with costs.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA: 40939/98 MEAGHER JA COLE AJA

Monday, 5 July 1999.

ANNA ROMEO v BEVERLEY DELLA FRANCA

JUDGMENT

1 MEAGHER JA: The plaintiff, Mrs Della Franca, was injured in a motor car accident on 8 July 1996. She suffered musculoligamentous injuries to her cervical and upper thoracic spine. She will probably for the rest of her life be unable to indulge in bending or heavy lifting. She had a job at the time of the accident and there is no specific evidence that that job is in any immediate jeopardy. She sued the defendants for negligence. They admitted liability. Accordingly quantum alone was an issue. 2 Delaney J entered a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $90,348.65. The two components of that verdict which are disputed are non economic loss 46,500 and damages for future economic loss 35,000. The defendants submit that these figures are a bit high. I agree with that but the defendants need leave in order to appeal and they have applied for it. It is true that the evidence on all points is a little thin-ish. It is also true that his Honour's passing comments on s70A and 79A of the Motor Accidents Act are quaint. Nevertheless the opponent's submissions that no question of principle and no point of law is involved must be upheld. In my opinion leave to appeal must be refused and the claimant's summons in that regard should be dismissed with costs. 3 COLE AJA: I agree. 4 MEAGHER JA: Those then will be the orders of the Court.