Taylor v Johnson [1999] NSWCA 217

Taylor v Johnson [1999] NSWCA 217

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not demonstrate that the trial judge acted on any error of principle or misapprehension of fact, and the assessment of future economic loss at $300 per week was not shown to be so wholly erroneous as to justify appellate interference. The Court accepted that the trial judge found the appellant was unlikely to practise as a solicitor and that there was no evidentiary basis for equating her likely media-industry earnings with solicitor earnings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Quantum of Damages for Future Loss of Earning Capacity / Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales to the New South Wales Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['future Economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'quantum of Damages' 'appellate Review of Damages Assessment' 'personal Injury From Motor Vehicle Accident']
['torts' 'personal Injury' 'damages' 'civil Procedure'] ['future Economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'quantum of Damages' 'appellate Review of Damages Assessment' 'personal Injury From Motor Vehicle Accident']

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 Quantum of Damages for Future Loss of Earning Capacity / Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales to the New South Wales Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the District Court's assessment of the appellant's future loss of earning capacity at $300 per week was so erroneous, or affected by error of principle or misapprehension of fact, as to warrant appellate intervention." "Whether the appellant's future economic loss should have been calculated by reference to expected earnings as a solicitor rather than the trial judge's assessment of diminished earning capacity."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not demonstrate that the trial judge acted on any error of principle or misapprehension of fact, and the assessment of future economic loss at $300 per week was not shown to be so wholly erroneous as to justify appellate interference. The Court accepted that the trial judge found the appellant was unlikely to practise as a solicitor and that there was no evidentiary basis for equating her likely media-industry earnings with solicitor earnings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed with costs.']