Miller v Jennings [1954] HCA 65
The majority held that although the award of £2,700 general damages was low, Jackson J. had fully and carefully considered the appellant's injuries and consequences, had not acted on a wrong principle or omitted relevant matters, and the amount was not so inadequate as to fall outside the limits of a sound discretionary judgment; appellate intervention was therefore not justified.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Personal Injuries Damages Appeal / Appeal Against Assessment of Damages by Jackson J.; Liability Not in Dispute
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['personal Injuries' 'traffic Accident' 'assessment of General Damages' 'appellate Review of Damages' 'loss of Earning Capacity']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Damages Appeal / Appeal Against Assessment of Damages by Jackson J.; Liability Not in Dispute
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the general damages awarded for the appellant's personal injuries were so inadequate as to justify appellate interference." 'Whether the trial judge acted on a wrong principle or omitted relevant matters in assessing damages.']
Ratio Decidendi
The majority held that although the award of £2,700 general damages was low, Jackson J. had fully and carefully considered the appellant's injuries and consequences, had not acted on a wrong principle or omitted relevant matters, and the amount was not so inadequate as to fall outside the limits of a sound discretionary judgment; appellate intervention was therefore not justified.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment