FIELD v TIMBER INDUSTRIES LTD [1990] NSWCA 61

FIELD v TIMBER INDUSTRIES LTD [1990] NSWCA 61

Given the stringent limitations on appellate review of a jury’s verdict, and the existence of conflicting medical evidence and issues of witness credibility, there was a rational basis for the jury’s damages assessment. The verdict was not so unreasonable or inadequate as to justify interference, and SCR Pt34 R8A did not permit substitution of the jury’s verdict in this instance.

Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Field; Respondent / Defendant: Timber Industries Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 1990
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Jury Verdict (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Damages—personal Injuries, Appellate Review of Jury Verdict, Assessment of Incapacity and Earning Capacity, Application of Supreme Court Rules Pt34 R8 a
Tort Law Personal Injury Practice and Procedure Damages—personal Injuries Appellate Review of Jury Verdict Assessment of Incapacity and Earning Capacity Application of Supreme Court Rules Pt34 R8 a

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Field

Appellant / Plaintiff

Timber Industries Ltd

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Jury Verdict (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the damages verdict was so inadequate as to require appellate intervention
  2. 2 Whether Supreme Court Rules Pt34 R8A permits appellate substitution of the jury's verdict

Ratio Decidendi

Given the stringent limitations on appellate review of a jury’s verdict, and the existence of conflicting medical evidence and issues of witness credibility, there was a rational basis for the jury’s damages assessment. The verdict was not so unreasonable or inadequate as to justify interference, and SCR Pt34 R8A did not permit substitution of the jury’s verdict in this instance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant must pay the respondent's costs.