Qiao v Jacon Industries Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 125

Qiao v Jacon Industries Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 125

The trial judge's reasons showed a probable flawed reasoning process in assessing damages: 22 per cent of a most extreme case did not translate under the statutory formula to $32,500, and the table apparently used was a table of benefits for degree of permanent impairment under s 66(2), not a table for calculating non-economic loss under s 151G(5). Because the Court could not exclude confusion between percentage of a most extreme case and percentage degree of impairment, the damages assessment could not stand. The flaw was not an accidental slip or omission capable of correction under the slip rule, so the proper order was to set aside the judgment and order a new trial limited to damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff's Quantum Appeal From a District Court Workplace Injury Damages Judgment / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment and costs orders set aside; new trial as to damages ordered; no order as to costs of the appeal; District Court trial costs to abide the result of the new trial.
Legal Topics
['workplace Injury' 'modified Common Law Damages Under Workers Compensation Act 1987' 'non Economic Loss' 'economic Loss Threshold' 'appellate Intervention in Assessment of Damages' 'slip Rule' 'new Trial as to Damages']
['personal Injury' 'workers Compensation' 'assessment of Damages' 'civil Procedure'] ['workplace Injury' 'modified Common Law Damages Under Workers Compensation Act 1987' 'non Economic Loss' 'economic Loss Threshold' 'appellate Intervention in Assessment of Damages' 'slip Rule' 'new Trial as 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

Plaintiff's Quantum Appeal From a District Court Workplace Injury Damages Judgment / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the District Court judgment should have been pronounced against all three defendants when only one defendant was likely to have been the plaintiff's employer and liable." 'Whether the trial judge erred in assessing non-economic loss at 22 per cent of a most extreme case and translating that assessment to $32,500 by reference to an inapplicable table concerning degree of permanent impairment.' 'Whether the matter should be returned to the trial judge for correction under the slip rule or whether a new trial as to damages was required.' 'What costs orders should be made for the appeal and the District Court trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's reasons showed a probable flawed reasoning process in assessing damages: 22 per cent of a most extreme case did not translate under the statutory formula to $32,500, and the table apparently used was a table of benefits for degree of permanent impairment under s 66(2), not a table for calculating non-economic loss under s 151G(5). Because the Court could not exclude confusion between percentage of a most extreme case and percentage degree of impairment, the damages assessment could not stand. The flaw was not an accidental slip or omission capable of correction under the slip rule, so the proper order was to set aside the judgment and order a new trial limited to damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment and costs orders set aside; new trial as to damages ordered; no order as to costs of the appeal; District Court trial costs to abide the result of the new trial.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside the judgment and orders for payment of costs ordered by the trial judge.' 'Order that there be a new trial as to damages.' 'No order as to costs of the appeal.' 'Order that the costs of the trial in the District Court abide the result of the new trial.']