MANASSEH v DAVID [1995] NSWCA 268

MANASSEH v DAVID [1995] NSWCA 268

The trial judge was entitled to prefer Dr Weisz's evidence, which indicated no need for further revision fusion, and therefore to reject the claim for potential future surgery costs; as such, ground 3 of the notice of appeal fails.

Parties
Appellant: Manasseh; Respondent: David
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Hearing on Further Submissions
Outcome
Ground 3 of the appeal fails; previous orders made by the Court remain unchanged; no order as to costs for the additional hearing.
Legal Topics
Future Economic Loss, Damages, Medical Evidence
Personal Injury Future Economic Loss Damages Medical Evidence

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manasseh

Appellant

David

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment Hearing on Further Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to damages for the possibility of requiring a revision fusion at spinal levels L4/5 and L5/S1 in the future

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to prefer Dr Weisz's evidence, which indicated no need for further revision fusion, and therefore to reject the claim for potential future surgery costs; as such, ground 3 of the notice of appeal fails.

Court Disposition

Ground 3 of the appeal fails; previous orders made by the Court remain unchanged; no order as to costs for the additional hearing.

Orders

  • The orders previously made by the Court on 6 April 1995 are not varied.
  • There will be no order as to costs of the additional hearing.