Davies, L. v Ninness, G.M. [1986] FCA 105

Davies, L. v Ninness, G.M. [1986] FCA 105

The award for damages was excessive due to inclusion of the total house cleaning cost, overestimated future expenses period, and excessive general damages, resulting in a reduction after properly applying discount factors and restricting cleaning costs to only what respondent can no longer do due to injuries.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Lesley Davies; Respondent: Gwendoline May Ninness
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 1986
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Appeal allowed; award reduced
Legal Topics
Damages, Personal Injury Assessment, Interest on Damages, Domestic Assistance
Tort Law Damages Personal Injury Assessment Interest on Damages Domestic Assistance

Source-derived case record

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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesley Davies

Appellant

Gwendoline May Ninness

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Extent of respondent's disabilities caused by injury
  2. 2 Appropriate amount for damages (general and specific)
  3. 3 Calculation of future expenses for domestic assistance, delivery charges, gardening, and house cleaning

Ratio Decidendi

The award for damages was excessive due to inclusion of the total house cleaning cost, overestimated future expenses period, and excessive general damages, resulting in a reduction after properly applying discount factors and restricting cleaning costs to only what respondent can no longer do due to injuries.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; award reduced

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed.
  • The judgment entered in favour of the respondent in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory be varied by substituting for the amount of $90,300, the amount of $64,670.