ISKRA V. MCEACHERN

ISKRA V. MCEACHERN

The proper inference from the evidence is that the appellant's inability to work after leaving the mill resulted from a neurosis concomitant to brain damage from the accident, not malingering. As such, his economic loss extended beyond October 1966 and the damages awarded were inadequate. The appropriate amount for general damages is $8,000, justifying leave to appeal and variation of the verdict.

Parties
Appellant: Iskra; Respondent: McEachern
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 1968
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal Granted; Appeal Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; verdict varied
Legal Topics
Damages, Economic Loss, Assessment of Compensation, Brain Injury, Neurosis
Personal Injury Damages Economic Loss Assessment of Compensation Brain Injury Neurosis

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iskra

Appellant

McEachern

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Leave to Appeal Granted; Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the original damages award inadequate?
  2. 2 Did the appellant's incapacity to work extend beyond October 1966?
  3. 3 Was the appellant malingered or genuinely disabled due to neurosis and brain injury?

Ratio Decidendi

The proper inference from the evidence is that the appellant's inability to work after leaving the mill resulted from a neurosis concomitant to brain damage from the accident, not malingering. As such, his economic loss extended beyond October 1966 and the damages awarded were inadequate. The appropriate amount for general damages is $8,000, justifying leave to appeal and variation of the verdict.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; verdict varied

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal allowed with costs