Norris v Routley; Routley v Norris [2016] NSWCA 367

Norris v Routley; Routley v Norris [2016] NSWCA 367

The appeal failed because the primary judge's use of the Luntz consumption percentages was open on the expert evidence tendered by both parties, the appellant did not adduce evidence of actual household expenditure, savings practices, or a reliable alternative figure sufficient to demonstrate House v The King error, and the discretionary damages assessment disclosed no error of principle. The motion to lead further evidence failed because the evidence was further evidence requiring special grounds, it could have been discovered with reasonable diligence before trial, and its admission would prejudice the respondent and bifurcate the appellate process. Leave to cross-appeal was refused...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Application for Leave to Cross Appeal in Damages Proceedings Under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (nsw) / Court of Appeal From Supreme Court of Nsw, Common Law Division; Motion to Lead Further Evidence on Appeal
Outcome
Appellant's motion to lead further evidence dismissed; appeal dismissed; application for leave to cross-appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (nsw)' 'wrongful Death Damages' 'dependency and Personal Consumption Percentages' 'domestic Services' 'further Evidence on Appeal' 'leave to Cross Appeal']
['damages' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (nsw)' 'wrongful Death Damages' 'dependency and Personal Consumption Percentages' 'domestic Services' 'further Evidence on Appeal' 'leave to Cross Appeal']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Application for Leave to Cross Appeal in Damages Proceedings Under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (nsw) / Court of Appeal From Supreme Court of Nsw, Common Law Division; Motion to Lead Further Evidence on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge erred by applying the Luntz table consumption percentages to determine the deceased's consumption of combined household income." "Whether the primary judge erred by failing to adjust consumption percentages for retirement savings or the deceased's frugal habits." 'Whether special grounds existed under s 75A(8) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) to receive further evidence on appeal about revised consumption percentages.' 'Whether leave to cross-appeal should be granted concerning the hours of domestic services the deceased would have provided after the sons ceased to be dependent.' "Whether the value of domestic services should be discounted because some services would have been performed for the deceased's own benefit."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the primary judge's use of the Luntz consumption percentages was open on the expert evidence tendered by both parties, the appellant did not adduce evidence of actual household expenditure, savings practices, or a reliable alternative figure sufficient to demonstrate House v The King error, and the discretionary damages assessment disclosed no error of principle. The motion to lead further evidence failed because the evidence was further evidence requiring special grounds, it could have been discovered with reasonable diligence before trial, and its admission would prejudice the respondent and bifurcate the appellate process. Leave to cross-appeal was refused...

Court Disposition

Appellant's motion to lead further evidence dismissed; appeal dismissed; application for leave to cross-appeal refused.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the appellant's motion dated 3 May 2016 to lead further evidence with costs." 'Dismiss the appeal.' 'Appellant to pay the costs of the respondent to the appeal as agreed or assessed.' 'Application for leave to cross-appeal refused.' "Respondent to pay the appellant's costs of application for leave to...