Gillard v Hunter Wire Products Pty Ltd t/as Hunter Screen Products [2001] NSWCA 382

Gillard v Hunter Wire Products Pty Ltd t/as Hunter Screen Products [2001] NSWCA 382

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's cushion or buffer method for past and future economic loss was inappropriate on the facts as found. The ordinary method could be used by reference to Exhibit B, subject to adding a notional amount for 1998 when the plaintiff withdrew from work to act as house husband. The appropriate past economic loss was $81,835, and future economic loss was assessed on a weekly loss of $200, producing $156,600. Interest and superannuation were left for calculation in draft orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Quantum Appeal as to Assessment of Past and Future Economic Loss in a Workplace Injury Damages Claim / Appeal From District Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['past Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'superannuation' 'interest' 'assessment of Damages' 'cushion or Buffer Method']
['personal Injury' 'workers Compensation' 'damages' 'civil Procedure'] ['past Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'superannuation' 'interest' 'assessment of Damages' 'cushion or Buffer Method']

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

Quantum Appeal as to Assessment of Past and Future Economic Loss in a Workplace Injury Damages Claim / Appeal From District Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge used an inappropriate cushion or buffer method to assess past economic loss and future economic loss.' "Whether past and future economic loss should instead be reassessed by reference to the plaintiff's actual earnings and comparable earnings, with appropriate adjustments." 'What figures should be adopted for past economic loss and future economic loss, leaving interest and superannuation to be calculated by the parties.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's cushion or buffer method for past and future economic loss was inappropriate on the facts as found. The ordinary method could be used by reference to Exhibit B, subject to adding a notional amount for 1998 when the plaintiff withdrew from work to act as house husband. The appropriate past economic loss was $81,835, and future economic loss was assessed on a weekly loss of $200, producing $156,600. Interest and superannuation were left for calculation in draft orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['The parties are to bring in draft orders reflecting the figures as adjusted by this decision, and including amounts for interest and superannuation, at 9:30 AM on 8 November 2001.' 'The draft orders should provide for the judgment below to be set aside.' "The draft orders should provide for the judgment in its...