Attard v. Aberwood Pty. Limited & Anor. [2004] NSWCA 412

Attard v. Aberwood Pty. Limited & Anor. [2004] NSWCA 412

The trial judge erred by failing to assess future economic loss based on the quantified value of assistance provided by the appellant's wife, despite making findings as to the extent and cost of that assistance. A more precise assessment was available from the evidence, and the global figure adopted was unreasonably low and appealably wrong.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['damages' 'economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'assessment of Damages' 'motor Vehicle Accidents']
['personal Injury' 'torts'] ['damages' 'economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'assessment of Damages' 'motor Vehicle Accidents']

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 / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in assessing future economic loss by adopting a global figure' 'Whether alternative quantification based on cost of assistance should have been adopted' 'Appropriateness of non-economic loss and superannuation assessments']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by failing to assess future economic loss based on the quantified value of assistance provided by the appellant's wife, despite making findings as to the extent and cost of that assistance. A more precise assessment was available from the evidence, and the global figure adopted was unreasonably low and appealably wrong.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' "Respondents to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act if otherwise entitled." 'Orders below set aside and instead verdict and judgment for the appellant in the sum of $249,446 to take effect as at 9 December 2003.' 'Each party to pay its own...