MACKIE v THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT [1990] NSWCA 116

MACKIE v THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT [1990] NSWCA 116

The Court held that the trial judge erred in failing to include the cost of future operative treatment in the damages awarded for the 1984 accident, and in failing to allow compensation for incapacity, pain, and discomfort attendant to the operation. The judgment below was set aside and, on reassessment, general damages were increased to reflect these additional factors.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Janiece Catherine Mackie; Respondent/defendant: The Nominal Defendant
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 1990
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part (in relation to 1984 accident), appeal dismissed in relation to 1987 accident.
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Loss of Earning Capacity, Pain and Suffering, Costs
Tort Personal Injury Assessment of Damages Motor Vehicle Accidents Loss of Earning Capacity Pain and Suffering Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janiece Catherine Mackie

Appellant/plaintiff

The Nominal Defendant

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the damages awarded to the plaintiff were inadequate for injuries sustained in the 1984 accident
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in not including an allowance for the anticipated cost of operative treatment in the assessment of damages
  3. 3 Whether the general damages properly reflected the loss of earning capacity

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the trial judge erred in failing to include the cost of future operative treatment in the damages awarded for the 1984 accident, and in failing to allow compensation for incapacity, pain, and discomfort attendant to the operation. The judgment below was set aside and, on reassessment, general damages were increased to reflect these additional factors.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part (in relation to 1984 accident), appeal dismissed in relation to 1987 accident.

Orders

  • Judgment below in action No 8318 of 1984 set aside.
  • Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $76,722.10 to take effect from 11 November 1988.