Edward Joseph VELLA v Chizuko SUGITA [2001] NSWCA 464

Edward Joseph VELLA v Chizuko SUGITA [2001] NSWCA 464

The assessment of non-economic loss at 37% of a most extreme case was outside the range of a proper exercise of discretion and was reassessed at 31%, producing $77,000. The future economic loss award was affected by a conceded mathematical error because allowance had not been made for the deferral of the age 50 to age 57 loss, reducing that component to $27,682. The awards for future treatment were supported by the evidence. The cross-appeal failed because the trial judge was not obliged to assess the post-50 earning loss by percentage possibilities of total incapacity, and his approach to probability and reduced overtime disclosed no appellable error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal Concerning Damages in Motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injury Proceedings / Appeal From District Court Verdict and Judgment of Price J
Outcome
Appeal upheld; cross-appeal dismissed; District Court verdict and judgment set aside and substituted judgment entered for the respondent in the amount of $224,707.00.
Legal Topics
['non Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'future Treatment Costs' 'most Extreme Case Assessment' 'mathematical Error in Damages Calculation']
['personal Injury' 'motor Vehicle Accidents' 'damages' 'appellate Review'] ['non Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'future Treatment Costs' 'most Extreme Case Assessment' 'mathematical Error in Damages Calculation']

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 and Cross Appeal Concerning Damages in Motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injury Proceedings / Appeal From District Court Verdict and Judgment of Price J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's assessment of non-economic loss at 37% of a most extreme case was outside the reasonable range." 'Whether the award for future treatment, including massage and swimming, was supported by the evidence.' 'Whether the future economic loss award contained a mathematical error by failing to defer the loss for the period from age 50 to age 57.' 'Whether the cross-appeal established that future economic loss after age 50 should have been assessed by applying a percentage possibility that the respondent would be unable to work at all.']

Ratio Decidendi

The assessment of non-economic loss at 37% of a most extreme case was outside the range of a proper exercise of discretion and was reassessed at 31%, producing $77,000. The future economic loss award was affected by a conceded mathematical error because allowance had not been made for the deferral of the age 50 to age 57 loss, reducing that component to $27,682. The awards for future treatment were supported by the evidence. The cross-appeal failed because the trial judge was not obliged to assess the post-50 earning loss by percentage possibilities of total incapacity, and his approach to probability and reduced overtime disclosed no appellable error.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; cross-appeal dismissed; District Court verdict and judgment set aside and substituted judgment entered 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...