Emmett v Hornsby Shire Council [2002] NSWCA 203

Emmett v Hornsby Shire Council [2002] NSWCA 203

The appeal succeeded in part because, although there was no basis to interfere with the rejection of most of the Griffiths v Kerkemeyer claim, the trial judge gave no reasons and had no evidentiary basis for reducing the appellant's proven past wage loss from $23,464 to about $21,000, and erred by failing to award interest on past economic loss and on the past component of general damages. The appellant recovered more than the settlement offer, so the usual costs order was made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal in a Damages Claim Arising Out of a Workplace Injury / Court of Appeal Appeal From District Court; Leave to Appeal Granted and Appeal Heard Instanter
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['griffiths V Kerkemeyer Damages' 'past Economic Loss' 'interest on Damages' 'general Damages' 'costs of Appeal' 'leave to Appeal']
['personal Injury' 'damages' 'civil Procedure'] ['griffiths V Kerkemeyer Damages' 'past Economic Loss' 'interest on Damages' 'general Damages' 'costs of Appeal' 'leave to Appeal']

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 in a Damages Claim Arising Out of a Workplace Injury / Court of Appeal Appeal From District Court; Leave to Appeal Granted and Appeal Heard Instanter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting most of the appellant's claim for household assistance under the Griffiths v Kerkemeyer principle." "Whether the trial judge erred in awarding less than the appellant's actual past wage loss without reasons." 'Whether interest should have been awarded on past economic loss.' 'Whether interest should have been awarded on the past component of general damages.' 'Whether the usual costs order should be displaced because of a prior settlement offer and interlocutory costs matters.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded in part because, although there was no basis to interfere with the rejection of most of the Griffiths v Kerkemeyer claim, the trial judge gave no reasons and had no evidentiary basis for reducing the appellant's proven past wage loss from $23,464 to about $21,000, and erred by failing to award interest on past economic loss and on the past component of general damages. The appellant recovered more than the settlement offer, so the usual costs order was made.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed in part.' 'Verdict and judgment of the trial judge set aside.' 'In lieu thereof there is entered a verdict and judgment for the appellant in the sum $153,852.35.' "The respondent is to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and is to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act 1951 (NSW), if so...