Casey v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd; Helm v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 734

Casey v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd; Helm v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 734

The May judgment contained no relevant error in calculating Dr Helm's future economic loss. The Court had considered and rejected Pel-Air's argument that the $3,354 cap under s 12 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) should be reduced by a notional tax deduction. Section 12(2) required only that amounts above three times average weekly earnings be disregarded, and did not require the capped amount itself to be recalculated on a net-of-tax basis. The issue was therefore resolved in favour of Dr Helm.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Common Law Proceedings Concerning Damages / Consequential Orders After Judgment; Issue Concerning Alleged Error in Calculation of Future Economic Loss
Outcome
Issue resolved in favour of Dr Helm; judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant with a partial stay pending any appeal and costs reserved for written submissions.
Legal Topics
['judgment and Orders' 'correction of Judgment' 'future Economic Loss' 'civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw) S 12' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'costs Directions']
['civil Procedure' 'personal Injury Damages'] ['judgment and Orders' 'correction of Judgment' 'future Economic Loss' 'civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw) S 12' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'costs Directions']

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

Common Law Proceedings Concerning Damages / Consequential Orders After Judgment; Issue Concerning Alleged Error in Calculation of Future Economic Loss

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the May judgment contained an error as to the calculation of Dr Helm's future economic loss that could be corrected under Rule 36.16 or 36.17 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005." 'Whether s 12 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) required the agreed figure of $3,354, being three times average weekly earnings, to be further reduced by a notional tax deduction.' "Whether Dr Helm's future economic loss should be calculated by reference to $3,354 per week or the lower figure contended for by Pel-Air."]

Ratio Decidendi

The May judgment contained no relevant error in calculating Dr Helm's future economic loss. The Court had considered and rejected Pel-Air's argument that the $3,354 cap under s 12 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) should be reduced by a notional tax deduction. Section 12(2) required only that amounts above three times average weekly earnings be disregarded, and did not require the capped amount itself to be recalculated on a net-of-tax basis. The issue was therefore resolved in favour of Dr Helm.

Court Disposition

Issue resolved in favour of Dr Helm; judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant with a partial stay pending any appeal and costs reserved for written submissions.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the amount of $959,478.' 'Note that of the judgment sum in order 1 the defendant has already paid the sum of $12,104.20 by way of repayment of workers compensation benefits paid to the plaintiff, in partial satisfaction of the judgment.' 'Payment of $197,216 of...