Jennings v Wilden [2023] NSWCA 41

Jennings v Wilden [2023] NSWCA 41

Read as a whole, the trial judge's reasons showed no misunderstanding or misapplication of the civil standard of proof and no reversal of the onus: the references to whether the plaintiff's evidence was "glaringly improbable" or contrary to compelling inferences formed part of a broader assessment of reliability, consistency and objective material, followed by express application of s 140 and Briginshaw/Neat principles. The $100,000 buffer for future economic loss was within the permissible range because psychiatric evidence supported PTSD caused by the assaults and a risk that it could affect the respondent's future work capacity over an expected long working life.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Orders of the District Court of NSW on Liability and Future Economic Loss Damages
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['forced Sexual Intercourse Without Consent Within Marriage' 'civil Standard of Proof' 'appellate Review of Findings of Fact' 'burden of Proof' 'future Economic Loss' 'buffer Damages']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'torts' 'damages'] ['forced Sexual Intercourse Without Consent Within Marriage' 'civil Standard of Proof' 'appellate Review of Findings of Fact' 'burden of Proof' 'future Economic Loss' 'buffer 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Orders of the District Court of NSW on Liability and Future Economic Loss Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred by applying the standard for appellate review of findings of fact to the plaintiff's evidence." 'Whether the trial judge effectively reversed the burden of proof in deciding liability.' 'Whether the award of $100,000 for future economic loss was excessive and unsupported by the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Read as a whole, the trial judge's reasons showed no misunderstanding or misapplication of the civil standard of proof and no reversal of the onus: the references to whether the plaintiff's evidence was "glaringly improbable" or contrary to compelling inferences formed part of a broader assessment of reliability, consistency and objective material, followed by express application of s 140 and Briginshaw/Neat principles. The $100,000 buffer for future economic loss was within the permissible range because psychiatric evidence supported PTSD caused by the assaults and a risk that it could affect the respondent's future work capacity over an expected long working life.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the appeal from the judgment and orders of the District Court.' "Order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs in this Court."]