PT v SHOREY [2001] NSWCA 127

PT v SHOREY [2001] NSWCA 127

The majority held that the finding that the plaintiff was not a malingerer could not be disturbed, but the finding that the fall caused or contributed to her conversion disorder was an inference not based on credit and was reviewable. On the medical and factual evidence, the plaintiff did not discharge the onus of proving a causal link between the fall and the conversion disorder. The appellant was liable only for the temporary aggravation of the plaintiff's pre-existing back condition caused by the fall, so the District Court damages judgment had to be set aside and replaced with a lower award.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From District Court Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['damages' 'causation' 'conversion Disorder' 'malingering' 'appellate Review of Findings of Fact' 'credit Findings']
['personal Injury' 'torts' 'civil Procedure'] ['damages' 'causation' 'conversion Disorder' 'malingering' 'appellate Review of Findings of Fact' 'credit Findings']

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

Personal Injury Damages Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From District Court Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial Judge's finding that the plaintiff was not malingering could be disturbed on appeal." 'Whether the plaintiff proved a causal link between her fall and her conversion disorder.' 'Whether the damages assessed by the District Court should be reduced or increased.']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the finding that the plaintiff was not a malingerer could not be disturbed, but the finding that the fall caused or contributed to her conversion disorder was an inference not based on credit and was reviewable. On the medical and factual evidence, the plaintiff did not discharge the onus of proving a causal link between the fall and the conversion disorder. The appellant was liable only for the temporary aggravation of the plaintiff's pre-existing back condition caused by the fall, so the District Court damages judgment had to be set aside and replaced with a lower award.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Judgment for the plaintiff for $555,212.55 and costs set aside.' 'In lieu thereof substitute a judgment for the plaintiff for $68,911.05 with effect from 29 February 2000.' "By consent order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the trial up to 11 am on 9/6/99, thereafter plaintiff to...