PACE v WEBBER [1999] NSWCA 190

PACE v WEBBER [1999] NSWCA 190

The trial judge's findings that the plaintiff's combined physical and psychological impairments made him unemployable were supported by expert psychological evidence and the judge's assessment of the plaintiff, so the plaintiff discharged the onus under s 39 and his economic loss damages should not be reduced for failure to mitigate. The assessment of non-economic loss at 55 percent of a most extreme case was not outside the permissible range. The appeal succeeded only to correct the conceded $1,250 error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Motor Accident Personal Injury Damages Proceeding / Appeal From District Court Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; otherwise dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['mitigation of Damages by Injured Person' 'motor Accidents Act 1988 S 39' 'non Economic Loss' 'economic Loss' 'out of Pocket Expenses' 'costs']
['torts' 'motor Accidents' 'damages'] ['mitigation of Damages by Injured Person' 'motor Accidents Act 1988 S 39' 'non Economic Loss' 'economic Loss' 'out of Pocket Expenses' 'costs']

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 in Motor Accident Personal Injury Damages Proceeding / Appeal From District Court Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages under s 39 of the Motor Accidents Act by not pursuing employment opportunities.' 'Whether the finding that the plaintiff was unemployable was unsupported by evidence or against the weight of evidence.' 'Whether assessment of non-economic loss at 55 percent of a most extreme case was outside the range of a sound judicial discretion.' 'Whether the judgment included an erroneous out-of-pocket amount of $1,250.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's findings that the plaintiff's combined physical and psychological impairments made him unemployable were supported by expert psychological evidence and the judge's assessment of the plaintiff, so the plaintiff discharged the onus under s 39 and his economic loss damages should not be reduced for failure to mitigate. The assessment of non-economic loss at 55 percent of a most extreme case was not outside the permissible range. The appeal succeeded only to correct the conceded $1,250 error.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; otherwise dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment reduced by $1,250.' 'Substituted judgment for the respondent for $653,774.37, with effect from 25 February 1998.' 'Respondent entitled to ordinary costs until 30 June 1998 and indemnity costs from 30 June 1998.']