INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED v JOHNSON [No 2] [1990] NSWCA 97

INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED v JOHNSON [No 2] [1990] NSWCA 97

The appeal on ground of misdirection (directions on medical evidence / causation) was dismissed as the trial judge’s directions were not shown to be erroneous. However, the component of general damages awarded ($95,603.70) was unreasonably high in the circumstances when added to full compensation for lost earning capacity and warranted the setting aside of the verdict and a new trial limited to the issue of damages.

Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited; Respondent / Plaintiff: Anka Johnson (formerly Anka Ostojic)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 1990
Procedural Posture
Appeal (personal Injuries, Negligence) / Judgment on Appeal From Jury Verdict in Trial at First Instance
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment set aside; new trial ordered limited to damages; costs orders given.
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Personal Injury, Damages Assessment, Negligence, Misdirection of Jury, Jury Verdicts, Loss of Earning Capacity
Tort Law Employment Law Employer's Liability Personal Injury Damages Assessment Negligence Misdirection of Jury Jury Verdicts +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited

Appellant / Defendant

Anka Johnson (formerly Anka Ostojic)

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal (personal Injuries, Negligence) / Judgment on Appeal From Jury Verdict in Trial at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury concerning medical evidence, especially regarding the plaintiff’s pain threshold or psychological factors
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in declining to give further directions on causation (physical or psychological basis for incapacity)
  3. 3 Whether the general damages award was so excessive as to be unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal on ground of misdirection (directions on medical evidence / causation) was dismissed as the trial judge’s directions were not shown to be erroneous. However, the component of general damages awarded ($95,603.70) was unreasonably high in the circumstances when added to full compensation for lost earning capacity and warranted the setting aside of the verdict and a new trial limited to the issue of damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment set aside; new trial ordered limited to damages; costs orders given.

Orders

  • Set aside judgment entered by Newman J on the jury’s verdict.
  • Proceedings returned to Common Law Division for retrial on the issue of damages.