Jopling v Isaac [2006] NSWCA 299

Jopling v Isaac [2006] NSWCA 299

The appeal failed because the appellant identified no error of principle or misapprehension of fact, and the damages assessed by the primary judge for non-economic loss, past economic loss, past loss of opportunity, future economic loss and future loss of opportunity were open on the accepted evidence and were not so unreasonable as to justify appellate intervention. Sections 12 and 13 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 did not demonstrate error: s 12 was not engaged on the evidence, and the assessment of future economic loss using a lump sum cushion satisfied s 13 and the applicable principles for uncertain future economic loss.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Assessment of Damages for Personal Injury After Admitted Liability and Contributory Negligence Finding / Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs on the indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['non Economic Loss' 'past Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'contributory Negligence' 'indemnity Costs' 'civil Liability Act 2002']
['torts' 'damages' 'appellate Review'] ['non Economic Loss' 'past Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'contributory Negligence' 'indemnity Costs' 'civil Liability Act 2002']

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 Concerning Assessment of Damages for Personal Injury After Admitted Liability and Contributory Negligence Finding / Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the assessment of non-economic loss at 28% of a most extreme case was manifestly excessive.' 'Whether the awards for past economic loss and past loss of opportunity were manifestly excessive or unsupported by evidence.' 'Whether the awards for future economic loss and future loss of opportunity were manifestly excessive or unsupported by evidence.' 'Whether the primary judge failed to apply ss 12 and 13 of the Civil Liability Act 2002.' 'Whether the costs order on the indemnity basis should stand.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the appellant identified no error of principle or misapprehension of fact, and the damages assessed by the primary judge for non-economic loss, past economic loss, past loss of opportunity, future economic loss and future loss of opportunity were open on the accepted evidence and were not so unreasonable as to justify appellate intervention. Sections 12 and 13 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 did not demonstrate error: s 12 was not engaged on the evidence, and the assessment of future economic loss using a lump sum cushion satisfied s 13 and the applicable principles for uncertain future economic loss.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs on the indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['Order that the appeal be dismissed.' "Order the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on the indemnity basis."]