BOOCOCK v DUNNE and ANOR [1994] NSWCA 31

BOOCOCK v DUNNE and ANOR [1994] NSWCA 31

The appropriate quantification of damages for gratuitous services is to compensate for fifteen hours per week of assistance by the plaintiff's daughter between the accident and the trial (past), and for a period of five years into the future, reflecting reasonable requirements resulting from the accident. The judge at trial erred by unduly reducing the compensable hours without adequate justification.

Parties
Plaintiff: Boocock; Respondent: Dunne
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 1994
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Quantification of Damages, Compensation for Services, Personal Injury, Griffiths V Kerkemeyer Damages
Tort Law Quantification of Damages Compensation for Services Personal Injury Griffiths V Kerkemeyer 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boocock

Plaintiff

Dunne

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate assessment of damages for gratuitous services provided to the plaintiff as a result of her injuries?
  2. 2 What period and number of hours per week should compensation be awarded for past and future assistance provided to the plaintiff?

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate quantification of damages for gratuitous services is to compensate for fifteen hours per week of assistance by the plaintiff's daughter between the accident and the trial (past), and for a period of five years into the future, reflecting reasonable requirements resulting from the accident. The judge at trial erred by unduly reducing the compensable hours without adequate justification.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment below set aside as to costs.
  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $178,811, dated from 6 May 1993.