KEATES v NELSON [1992] NSWCA 122

KEATES v NELSON [1992] NSWCA 122

The trial judge erred in considering the defendant's status as an institutional insurer in the calculation of interest; such factors are irrelevant and therefore interest should be recalculated according to the principles laid out in Gogic and Williams. Allowance for special footwear, its calculation for life expectancy, and the discount for refusal were within the trial judge's discretion and supported by evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Adrian Keates; Respondent: Mark Nelson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 1992
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Calculation of Interest, Allowance for Special Footwear, Assessment of Damages
Tort Personal Injury Damages Calculation of Interest Allowance for Special Footwear Assessment 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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrian Keates

Appellant

Mark Nelson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the allowance for special footwear justified based on the evidence?
  2. 2 Should the allowance for footwear be limited to working life rather than life expectancy?
  3. 3 Was the discount for refusal to wear special footwear adequate?

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in considering the defendant's status as an institutional insurer in the calculation of interest; such factors are irrelevant and therefore interest should be recalculated according to the principles laid out in Gogic and Williams. Allowance for special footwear, its calculation for life expectancy, and the discount for refusal were within the trial judge's discretion and supported by evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Set aside judgment of Allen J in favour of the respondent in the sum of $143,981.39.
  • Enter judgment in favour of the respondent in the sum of $130,046.39 together with his costs of the trial.