Kwong v Abdulwahab [2016] NSWCA 107

Kwong v Abdulwahab [2016] NSWCA 107

The plaintiff's economic loss and reduction in earning capacity were caused by the injury to the right index finger, not by the supervening back condition. The award for future medical expenses was not supported by evidence and was speculative; therefore, it should be set aside. The quantification of economic loss at $500 per week, though inadequately reasoned by the primary judge, is supported by the evidence and should be endorsed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'damages' 'assessment of Damages' 'economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'future Medical Expenses']
['torts' 'personal Injury' 'medical Negligence'] ['negligence' 'damages' 'assessment of Damages' 'economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'future Medical Expenses']

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

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the injury to the plaintiff's right index finger caused ongoing diminution in earning capacity" "Whether the plaintiff's economic loss was attributable to hand injury or supervening back condition" "Adequacy of the primary judge's reasons for quantification of economic loss" 'Whether award for future medical expenses was supported by evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's economic loss and reduction in earning capacity were caused by the injury to the right index finger, not by the supervening back condition. The award for future medical expenses was not supported by evidence and was speculative; therefore, it should be set aside. The quantification of economic loss at $500 per week, though inadequately reasoned by the primary judge, is supported by the evidence and should be endorsed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • ['Time to appeal extended to 22 September 2015' 'Judgment for $534,695 set aside' 'Judgment entered for the plaintiff for $524,695' "Respondent to pay appellant's costs of the appeal"]