Dawson v Selby [2001] NSWCA 287

Dawson v Selby [2001] NSWCA 287

The appeal succeeded because the trial judge failed to make necessary findings and give reasons on damages, including findings required by s 79A(3) and (4) of the Motor Accidents Act, the competing medical evidence, alleged injuries, and the appellant's credibility. Because those omissions made it impossible for the Court of Appeal to assess damages without seeing or hearing the appellant, the judgment had to be set aside and the matter remitted for a new trial limited to damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Negligence Claim for Motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injury Damages / Appeal From District Court Judgment on Damages; Cross Appeal Filed Seeking a New Trial for Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; verdict and judgment for the respondent set aside except that findings on negligence, contributory negligence and apportionment of fault were not disturbed; new trial limited to assessment of damages ordered.
Legal Topics
['failure to Give Reasons' 'assessment of Damages' 'non Economic Loss Under the Motor Accidents Act' 'contributory Negligence' 'new Trial Limited to Damages']
['negligence' 'motor Vehicle Accidents' 'personal Injury' 'damages' 'civil Procedure'] ['failure to Give Reasons' 'assessment of Damages' 'non Economic Loss Under the Motor Accidents Act' 'contributory Negligence' 'new Trial Limited to 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Negligence Claim for Motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injury Damages / Appeal From District Court Judgment on Damages; Cross Appeal Filed Seeking a New Trial for Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred by failing to express findings and reasons concerning the appellant's claimed injuries and damages." 'Whether the Court of Appeal could assess damages itself under s 107 of the Supreme Court Act.' 'Whether the absence of findings on s 79A(3) and (4) of the Motor Accidents Act required a retrial on damages.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because the trial judge failed to make necessary findings and give reasons on damages, including findings required by s 79A(3) and (4) of the Motor Accidents Act, the competing medical evidence, alleged injuries, and the appellant's credibility. Because those omissions made it impossible for the Court of Appeal to assess damages without seeing or hearing the appellant, the judgment had to be set aside and the matter remitted for a new trial limited to damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; verdict and judgment for the respondent set aside except that findings on negligence, contributory negligence and apportionment of fault were not disturbed; new trial limited to assessment of damages ordered.

Orders

  • ['Whilst the findings on negligence, contributory negligence, and apportionment of fault should not be disturbed, the appeal should otherwise be allowed and the verdict and judgment for the respondent should be set aside.' 'There should be a new trial limited to the assessment of damages only.' 'The respondent...