HAE RAN CHA v FORRESTER [1992] NSWCA 103

HAE RAN CHA v FORRESTER [1992] NSWCA 103

The trial judge was entitled to find, based both on medical and lay evidence, that the respondent was totally incapacitated for work as a result of the 1988 accident, and this incapacity made the existence or otherwise of available jobs irrelevant. His Honour was also entitled to exercise discretion in determining the contingency allowance and proportion of non-economic loss; the calculations and interest awarded were not unreasonable and should not be disturbed.

Parties
Appellant: Hae Ran Cha; Respondent: John Owen Forrester
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 1992
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Quantum of Damages, Total Incapacity for Work, Contingency Allowance, Non Economic Loss, Interest Calculation
Damages Tort Quantum of Damages Total Incapacity for Work Contingency Allowance Non Economic Loss Interest 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hae Ran Cha

Appellant

John Owen Forrester

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was totally incapacitated for work as a result of the 1988 motor vehicle accident
  2. 2 Appropriateness of the 20 percent contingency allowance
  3. 3 Reasonableness of the non-economic damages award

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to find, based both on medical and lay evidence, that the respondent was totally incapacitated for work as a result of the 1988 accident, and this incapacity made the existence or otherwise of available jobs irrelevant. His Honour was also entitled to exercise discretion in determining the contingency allowance and proportion of non-economic loss; the calculations and interest awarded were not unreasonable and should not be disturbed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs