Jones v Schiffmann [1971] HCA 52

Jones v Schiffmann [1971] HCA 52

By majority, the trial judge's award was so low in the circumstances of the deceased's secure earnings, the stable marriage, and the respondent's likely future dependence that appellate intervention was justified. Although the respondent's capacity to remarry had to be treated as a real factor, the Court of Appeal's substituted assessment was not shown to be an unreasonable assessment of the respondent's financial loss. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal in an Action for Damages for Death Under the Compensation to Relatives Act, 1897, as Amended (n.s.w.). / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Court of Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Which Had Increased the Damages Award.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['wrongful Death Damages' 'dependency Damages' 'assessment of Financial Loss' 'prospects of Remarriage' 'appellate Interference With Damages Awards']
['tort Law' 'damages' 'appellate Procedure'] ['wrongful Death Damages' 'dependency Damages' 'assessment of Financial Loss' 'prospects of Remarriage' 'appellate Interference With Damages Awards']

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 an Action for Damages for Death Under the Compensation to Relatives Act, 1897, as Amended (n.s.w.). / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Court of Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Which Had Increased the Damages Award.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's damages award was so unreasonably low that it should be set aside." 'Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in substituting a higher assessment of damages.' "How the respondent widow's capacity or prospects of remarriage should be treated in assessing damages for financial loss."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the trial judge's award was so low in the circumstances of the deceased's secure earnings, the stable marriage, and the respondent's likely future dependence that appellate intervention was justified. Although the respondent's capacity to remarry had to be treated as a real factor, the Court of Appeal's substituted assessment was not shown to be an unreasonable assessment of the respondent's financial loss. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']