ENGLAND v VAN DONK [1997] NSWCA 103

ENGLAND v VAN DONK [1997] NSWCA 103

The trial judge’s failure to provide reasons for preferring the respondent’s expert over the appellant’s on the key issue of non-economic loss was an error of law, warranting a new trial (except as to future economic loss). The Court split on whether s79(1) required significant impairment at trial, but all agreed a lack of reasoning was dispositive for the outcome.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: England; Respondent/defendant: Van Donk
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 1997
Procedural Posture
Motor Vehicle Accident Damages Claim / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From District Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld (by majority); new trial ordered except as to future economic loss. Cross-appeal on costs dismissed (by majority). (Powell JA dissenting: appeal dismissed; cross-appeal as to costs allowed).
Legal Topics
Non Economic Loss—motor Vehicle Accident, Interpretation of S79 Motor Accidents Act 1988, Award of Damages—significant Impairment, Procedural Fairness—reasons for Preferring Expert Evidence, Costs Following Arbitration and Trial
Torts Motor Accidents Damages Civil Procedure Non Economic Loss—motor Vehicle Accident Interpretation of S79 Motor Accidents Act 1988 Award of Damages—significant Impairment Procedural Fairness—reasons for Preferring Expert Evidence +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

England

Appellant/plaintiff

Van Donk

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Motor Vehicle Accident Damages Claim / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether, under s79 of the Motor Accidents Act 1988 as in force at March 1993, significant impairment by the injury must be continuing at the date of trial for non-economic loss to be awarded
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in preferring the respondent's expert over the appellant's without providing reasons
  3. 3 Proper application of s79(1) in cases of past but not continuing significant impairment

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge’s failure to provide reasons for preferring the respondent’s expert over the appellant’s on the key issue of non-economic loss was an error of law, warranting a new trial (except as to future economic loss). The Court split on whether s79(1) required significant impairment at trial, but all agreed a lack of reasoning was dispositive for the outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld (by majority); new trial ordered except as to future economic loss. Cross-appeal on costs dismissed (by majority). (Powell JA dissenting: appeal dismissed; cross-appeal as to costs allowed).

Orders

  • The verdict and judgment of Craigie DCJ set aside.
  • Order a new trial, except on future economic loss.