Appleton v Norris [2014] NSWCA 311

Appleton v Norris [2014] NSWCA 311

The appeal was dismissed except for correction of a conceded arithmetical error because the appellant showed no basis to disturb the trial judge's credibility findings or evaluative assessment of damages; the pregnancy and post-January 2011 financial loss were not factually caused by the respondent's negligence; ongoing psychological issues were found to be consistent with the appellant's pre-surgery condition; the statutory threshold for past domestic assistance was not established; and no legal error was shown in the assessments of non-economic loss or future economic loss.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Assessment of Damages in Tortious Negligence After Admitted Liability for Unsuccessful Reconstructive Breast Surgery / Appeal From Judgment of Balla DCJ Delivered on 13 August 2013
Outcome
Judgment varied to correct the total damages figure; appeal otherwise dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Legal Topics
['assessment of Damages' 'non Economic Loss' 'past and Future Economic Loss' 'domestic Assistance' 'out of Pocket Expenses' 'appellate Review of Findings of Credibility' 'factual Causation' 'reconstructive Surgery']
['torts' 'negligence' 'damages' 'civil Procedure'] ['assessment of Damages' 'non Economic Loss' 'past and Future Economic Loss' 'domestic Assistance' 'out of Pocket Expenses' 'appellate Review of Findings of Credibility' 'factual Causation' 'reconstructive Surgery']

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 Concerning Assessment of Damages in Tortious Negligence After Admitted Liability for Unsuccessful Reconstructive Breast Surgery / Appeal From Judgment of Balla DCJ Delivered on 13 August 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the assessment of non-economic loss at 30% of a most extreme case was manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the award for past out-of-pocket expenses was inadequate.' 'Whether adequate reasons were given for finding that the appellant had not met the statutory threshold for past domestic assistance.' 'Whether the appellant was entitled to damages for past domestic assistance.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in calculating past economic loss and past superannuation.' 'Whether the trial judge applied the correct legal test for future economic loss.' 'Whether this Court should disturb credibility findings made by the trial judge.' "Whether the appellant's pregnancy and consequential economic loss were causally related to the respondent's negligence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed except for correction of a conceded arithmetical error because the appellant showed no basis to disturb the trial judge's credibility findings or evaluative assessment of damages; the pregnancy and post-January 2011 financial loss were not factually caused by the respondent's negligence; ongoing psychological issues were found to be consistent with the appellant's pre-surgery condition; the statutory threshold for past domestic assistance was not established; and no legal error was shown in the assessments of non-economic loss or future economic loss.

Court Disposition

Judgment varied to correct the total damages figure; appeal otherwise dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • ['Vary the judgment of the Court below by substituting for the figure of $191,943.55, the figure of $195,060.43.' 'Otherwise dismiss the appeal.' "Order the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal."]