Edward Joseph VELLA v Chizuko SUGITA [2002] NSWCA 33

Edward Joseph VELLA v Chizuko SUGITA [2002] NSWCA 33

The Court held that the 37% assessment for non-economic loss was outside the proper range because it lacked due proportionality to a most extreme case, and substituted 31%, producing $77,000 for that head. The award for future treatment was upheld because the respondent's evidence supported massage and swimming as reasonable accident-related expenses. The future economic loss award was reduced because the trial judge made a conceded mathematical error by failing to discount the loss for the 16-year deferral before the age 50 to 57 period, but the cross-appeal failed because the trial judge was not obliged to assess the case by assigning a percentage chance that the respondent would be...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Verdict and Judgment in Favour of Respondent; Cross Appeal / New South Wales Court of Appeal From District Court Decision of Price DJC
Outcome
Appeal upheld; cross-appeal dismissed; District Court verdict and judgment set aside and substituted with judgment for the respondent in the amount of $224,707.00.
Legal Topics
['non Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'future Treatment Costs' 'appellate Review of Damages' 'assessment by Reference to a Most Extreme Case']
['motor Accidents' 'personal Injury' 'damages' 'civil Procedure'] ['non Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'future Treatment Costs' 'appellate Review of Damages' 'assessment by Reference to a Most Extreme Case']

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 Against Verdict and Judgment in Favour of Respondent; Cross Appeal / New South Wales Court of Appeal From District Court Decision of Price DJC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's assessment of non-economic loss at 37% of a most extreme case under s 79A of the Motor Accidents Act, 1988 (NSW) was outside the reasonable range." 'Whether the award for future treatment, including massage and swimming, should be set aside.' 'Whether the award for future economic loss contained a mathematical error by failing to allow for the deferred commencement of loss from age 50 to age 57.' "Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the respondent's proposed approach to future economic loss based on a percentage possibility of being unable to work at all after age 50."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the 37% assessment for non-economic loss was outside the proper range because it lacked due proportionality to a most extreme case, and substituted 31%, producing $77,000 for that head. The award for future treatment was upheld because the respondent's evidence supported massage and swimming as reasonable accident-related expenses. The future economic loss award was reduced because the trial judge made a conceded mathematical error by failing to discount the loss for the 16-year deferral before the age 50 to 57 period, but the cross-appeal failed because the trial judge was not obliged to assess the case by assigning a percentage chance that the respondent would be...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; cross-appeal dismissed; District Court verdict and judgment set aside and substituted with judgment for the respondent in the amount of $224,707.00.

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld.' 'Cross-appeal dismissed.' 'Verdict and judgment in the Court below be set aside.' 'There be substituted verdict and judgment for the respondent in the amount of $224,707.00.' "The respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and cross-appeal." "The respondent to have a Certificate under...