SRA NSW v Kathleen Farrelly & Anor [2001] NSWCA 159

SRA NSW v Kathleen Farrelly & Anor [2001] NSWCA 159

The non-economic loss awards were within the proper range and should stand, but the trial judge's unexplained 60/40 distribution of other damages against the SRA and Mrs Pells was inconsistent with the evidence that Mrs Farrelly had nearly recovered from the first accident before the second and that the second accident was the major independent cause of her condition; the apportionment should therefore be reversed, and loss of superannuation should be allowed and calculated.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Tort Damages for Personal Injuries From Two Accidents / Appeals and Cross Appeal From District Court Assessments and Distribution of Damages
Outcome
SRA v Farrelly appeal allowed; Pells v Farrelly appeal dismissed; Mrs Farrelly's cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['assessment of Damages' 'non Economic Loss' 'apportionment of Damages Between Defendants' 'past and Future Loss of Superannuation' 'successive Accidents']
['tort Law' 'damages' 'personal Injury'] ['assessment of Damages' 'non Economic Loss' 'apportionment of Damages Between Defendants' 'past and Future Loss of Superannuation' 'successive 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

Tort Damages for Personal Injuries From Two Accidents / Appeals and Cross Appeal From District Court Assessments and Distribution of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's awards of general damages or non-economic loss against the SRA and Mrs Pells should be disturbed." 'How damages for matters other than non-economic loss should be distributed between the SRA and Mrs Pells.' 'Whether Mrs Farrelly should have an allowance for past and future loss of superannuation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The non-economic loss awards were within the proper range and should stand, but the trial judge's unexplained 60/40 distribution of other damages against the SRA and Mrs Pells was inconsistent with the evidence that Mrs Farrelly had nearly recovered from the first accident before the second and that the second accident was the major independent cause of her condition; the apportionment should therefore be reversed, and loss of superannuation should be allowed and calculated.

Court Disposition

SRA v Farrelly appeal allowed; Pells v Farrelly appeal dismissed; Mrs Farrelly's cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['In the appeal, SRA v Farrelly, appeal allowed.' 'In the appeal Pells v Farrelly, appeal dismissed.' 'Cross appeal by the first respondent allowed.' 'SRA to have an order for costs.' 'Counsel to bring in short minutes giving effect to these reasons.']