McLEAN v ROWEKAMP [1995] NSWCA 287

McLEAN v ROWEKAMP [1995] NSWCA 287

Grove J made no error of principle in assessing past and future economic loss as a discounted proportion of established earning capacity, given the evidence of a real chance of loss. The trial judge's preference for medical evidence supporting continuing incapacity was open. No reversible error was established regarding the award of interest, since procedural objection was not raised at trial and necessary prerequisites were accepted by silence. No misdirection as to burden of proof on alternate causes occurred.

Parties
Appellant: McLean; Respondent: Rowekamp
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Economic Loss, Interference With Earning Capacity, Interest on Damages
Damages Personal Injuries Economic Loss Interference With Earning Capacity Interest on Damages

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McLean

Appellant

Rowekamp

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assessment of past and future economic loss was appropriate and supported by evidence
  2. 2 Whether the award of interest was contrary to s 73(4) Motor Traffic Act 1988
  3. 3 Whether Grove J erred in burden of proof concerning intervening causes per Perkiss v Crittenden

Ratio Decidendi

Grove J made no error of principle in assessing past and future economic loss as a discounted proportion of established earning capacity, given the evidence of a real chance of loss. The trial judge's preference for medical evidence supporting continuing incapacity was open. No reversible error was established regarding the award of interest, since procedural objection was not raised at trial and necessary prerequisites were accepted by silence. No misdirection as to burden of proof on alternate causes occurred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs