CSR LTD v JAN BOUWHUIS [1991] NSWCA 66

CSR LTD v JAN BOUWHUIS [1991] NSWCA 66

Fresh evidence concerning the respondent’s reduced life expectancy was correctly rejected because it addressed a prognostic issue that was litigated at trial and was inherently uncertain, not falsifying a common assumption or affronting justice. The adjournment for reconsideration by the Tribunal was rightly refused as s13(6) of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 supports finality and only allows reconsideration in exceptional circumstances not demonstrated here. Consistency with like cases is not determinative for general damages, and gross, not net, market cost is appropriate for voluntary home care damages.

Parties
Appellant: CSR LTD; Appellant: Midalco Pty Limited; Respondent: Jan Bouwhuis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 1991
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Dust Diseases Tribunal, Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Finality of Litigation, Assessment of Damages, Voluntary Home Care Damages
Tort Law Personal Injury Appellate Practice Dust Diseases Tribunal Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal Finality of Litigation Assessment of Damages Voluntary Home Care 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CSR LTD

Appellant

Midalco Pty Limited

Appellant

Jan Bouwhuis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence as to the respondent's reduced life expectancy should be admitted on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal should be adjourned to permit the Dust Diseases Tribunal to reconsider its judgment in light of new medical evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal or the appellate court may have regard to awards of general damages in like dust disease cases.

Ratio Decidendi

Fresh evidence concerning the respondent’s reduced life expectancy was correctly rejected because it addressed a prognostic issue that was litigated at trial and was inherently uncertain, not falsifying a common assumption or affronting justice. The adjournment for reconsideration by the Tribunal was rightly refused as s13(6) of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 supports finality and only allows reconsideration in exceptional circumstances not demonstrated here. Consistency with like cases is not determinative for general damages, and gross, not net, market cost is appropriate for voluntary home care damages.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.