Skillin v Hurley [2004] NSWCA 286

Skillin v Hurley [2004] NSWCA 286

The appeal on liability failed because the appellant did not show that the trial judge's acceptance of the plaintiff's version was inconsistent with incontrovertible facts or glaringly improbable; the probabilities supported the finding that the defendant's vehicle struck the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle. The damages appeal succeeded only in part because future domestic assistance was barred by s 72 of the Motor Accidents Act 1988, the superannuation component was excessive, and the future treatment award was not proved in the amount allowed and was reduced to $10,000. The awards for non-economic loss and future economic loss were supported by the evidence and not appellably excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Personal Injury Motor Accident Damages Proceedings / Appeal From District Court Judgment of English DCJ
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment reduced from $544,346 to $441,585; appeal otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['rear End Collision Liability' 'credit Based Findings' 'non Economic Loss' 'future Treatment Expenses' 'future Economic Loss' 'gratuitous Domestic Assistance' 'superannuation Loss' 'appellate Review of Damages']
['tort Law' 'personal Injury' 'motor Accidents' 'damages'] ['rear End Collision Liability' 'credit Based Findings' 'non Economic Loss' 'future Treatment Expenses' 'future Economic Loss' 'gratuitous Domestic Assistance' 'superannuation Loss' 'appellate Review of Damages']

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 Personal Injury Motor Accident Damages Proceedings / Appeal From District Court Judgment of English DCJ

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's findings on liability, based on accepting the plaintiff's evidence and rejecting the defendant's and Mrs Cole's evidence, should be disturbed on appeal." 'Whether the award for non-economic loss was outside the range of a sound exercise of discretion.' 'Whether the award for future medical treatment expenses was proved and should stand.' 'Whether the award for future economic loss was excessive.' 'Whether the awards for future domestic assistance and lost superannuation could be supported.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal on liability failed because the appellant did not show that the trial judge's acceptance of the plaintiff's version was inconsistent with incontrovertible facts or glaringly improbable; the probabilities supported the finding that the defendant's vehicle struck the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle. The damages appeal succeeded only in part because future domestic assistance was barred by s 72 of the Motor Accidents Act 1988, the superannuation component was excessive, and the future treatment award was not proved in the amount allowed and was reduced to $10,000. The awards for non-economic loss and future economic loss were supported by the evidence and not appellably excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment reduced from $544,346 to $441,585; appeal otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed in part.' 'Judgment for the plaintiff for $544,346 set aside except as to costs.' 'In lieu thereof substitute a judgment for the plaintiff for $441,585 with effect from 21 March 2003.' 'Appeal otherwise dismissed.' "Appellant to pay one-half of the respondent's costs of the appeal."]