Haines v Bendall [1991] HCA 15

Haines v Bendall [1991] HCA 15

In calculating interest for pre-judgment non-economic loss, the benefit from payment under s. 16 of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926 (NSW) must be deducted, as its enjoyment means the plaintiff was not kept out of that money; failing to deduct would violate the compensatory principle that damages should restore, not improve, the plaintiff's position.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed (majority); set aside Court of Appeal order regarding interest on non-economic loss; varied trial judgment by entering judgment for the respondent in the sum of $736,604.26.
Legal Topics
['damages' 'interest on Damages' "workers' Compensation" 'non Economic Loss']
['torts' 'personal Injury'] ['damages' 'interest on Damages' "workers' Compensation" 'non Economic Loss']

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 / High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Should payment under s. 16 of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926 (NSW) be taken into account when calculating interest on damages for pre-judgment non-economic loss in a negligence action?" 'Is a statutory lump sum for injury equivalent in character to common law damages for non-economic loss?']

Ratio Decidendi

In calculating interest for pre-judgment non-economic loss, the benefit from payment under s. 16 of the Workers' Compensation Act 1926 (NSW) must be deducted, as its enjoyment means the plaintiff was not kept out of that money; failing to deduct would violate the compensatory principle that damages should restore, not improve, the plaintiff's position.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (majority); set aside Court of Appeal order regarding interest on non-economic loss; varied trial judgment by entering judgment for the respondent in the sum of $736,604.26.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for respondent in sum of $736,604.26.' 'No order as to costs.']