Bakker v Williamson [1999] NSWCA 284

Bakker v Williamson [1999] NSWCA 284

The respondent did not establish a basis to disturb the finding that her non-economic loss was 12% of a most severe case, but the District Court judge's assessment of future economic loss was flawed. The judge wrongly referred to the fractured wrist as a soft tissue injury, treated the neck and wrist problems as if they had no current effect but might recur, and inconsistently dealt with medical evidence despite accepting evidence that the respondent continued to have pain and disabilities likely to continue. The $6000 allowance for future economic loss was too low, and the respondent's proposed $10,000 buffer was reasonable. Increasing the damages to $21,125 removed any foundation for...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Action Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / Defendant's Appeal by Leave From a District Court Costs Order; Respondent's Cross Appeal Seeking Increased Damages
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal allowed with costs; damages increased by $4000 to $21,125.
Legal Topics
['future Economic Loss' 'non Economic Loss' 'offer of Compromise' 'costs on Appeal' 'appellate Intervention in Damages Assessment']
['personal Injury' 'motor Vehicle Accidents' 'damages' 'civil Procedure'] ['future Economic Loss' 'non Economic Loss' 'offer of Compromise' 'costs on Appeal' 'appellate Intervention in Damages Assessment']

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 Action Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / Defendant's Appeal by Leave From a District Court Costs Order; Respondent's Cross Appeal Seeking Increased Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court award for non-economic loss was inadequate so as to warrant appellate intervention.' 'Whether the District Court award of $6000 for future economic loss was too low.' "Whether the defendant's appeal from the costs order had any foundation after determination of the cross-appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent did not establish a basis to disturb the finding that her non-economic loss was 12% of a most severe case, but the District Court judge's assessment of future economic loss was flawed. The judge wrongly referred to the fractured wrist as a soft tissue injury, treated the neck and wrist problems as if they had no current effect but might recur, and inconsistently dealt with medical evidence despite accepting evidence that the respondent continued to have pain and disabilities likely to continue. The $6000 allowance for future economic loss was too low, and the respondent's proposed $10,000 buffer was reasonable. Increasing the damages to $21,125 removed any foundation for...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal allowed with costs; damages increased by $4000 to $21,125.

Orders

  • ['Cross-appeal allowed with costs.' "Respondent's judgment increased by $4000 to $21,125." 'Appeal dismissed with costs.']