WITHERS v DEERING [2002] NSWCA 218

WITHERS v DEERING [2002] NSWCA 218

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals because the trial judge was entitled to accept the respondents' evidence, had considered the prior accident and pre-existing conditions, and made damages awards that were supported by the evidence and not outside the permissible range of discretion. The appellant did not establish error requiring appellate intervention or a new trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Assessment of Damages / Appeal From Two District Court Decisions Assessing Damages After Admitted Liability
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['assessment of Damages' 'non Economic Loss' 'past Loss of Earning Capacity' 'future Loss of Earning Capacity' 'causation' 'pre Existing Condition']
['torts' 'personal Injury' 'motor Vehicle Accidents' 'damages'] ['assessment of Damages' 'non Economic Loss' 'past Loss of Earning Capacity' 'future Loss of Earning Capacity' 'causation' 'pre Existing Condition']

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 Assessment of Damages / Appeal From Two District Court Decisions Assessing Damages After Admitted Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the award of non-economic loss to Mrs Deering was excessive and outside the permissible range of discretion.' "Whether the awards for Mrs Deering's past and future loss of earning capacity were erroneous." "Whether the trial judge failed to account for the effect of Mr Deering's earlier 1994 motor vehicle accident on his psychiatric and physical condition." 'Whether the awards to Mr Deering should be set aside because of alleged significant errors requiring a new trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals because the trial judge was entitled to accept the respondents' evidence, had considered the prior accident and pre-existing conditions, and made damages awards that were supported by the evidence and not outside the permissible range of discretion. The appellant did not establish error requiring appellate intervention or a new trial.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['In the appeal in relation to Mrs Deering: the appeal is dismissed.' "In the appeal in relation to Mrs Deering: the appellant is to pay the respondent's costs." 'In the appeal in relation to Mr Deering: the appeal is dismissed.' "In the appeal in relation to Mr Deering: the appellant is to pay the respondent's...