Glen v Sullivan [2015] NSWCA 191

Glen v Sullivan [2015] NSWCA 191

The respondent adduced probative evidence, principally via medical expert reports and surveillance, demonstrating that any aggravation of the appellant’s pre-existing psychiatric condition attributable to the accident had ceased well before the trial. Therefore, the onus identified in Watts v Rake and Purkess v Crittenden was discharged. The burden of persuading the court on the balance of probabilities that the continuing disabilities were caused by the accident remained on the appellant, and on the evidence, was not satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['damages' 'motor Vehicle Accident' 'psychiatric Injury' 'causation' 'burden of Proof']
['civil Liability' 'personal Injury'] ['damages' 'motor Vehicle Accident' 'psychiatric Injury' 'causation' 'burden of Proof']

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 / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the aggravation of the appellant's pre-existing psychiatric condition attributable to a motor vehicle accident had ceased before trial" 'Whether the respondent had discharged the onus of adducing evidence disentangling compensable from non-compensable causes of psychiatric disability']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent adduced probative evidence, principally via medical expert reports and surveillance, demonstrating that any aggravation of the appellant’s pre-existing psychiatric condition attributable to the accident had ceased well before the trial. Therefore, the onus identified in Watts v Rake and Purkess v Crittenden was discharged. The burden of persuading the court on the balance of probabilities that the continuing disabilities were caused by the accident remained on the appellant, and on the evidence, was not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed' "The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal"]