Donald v McKeown & Ors [2004] NSWCA 285

Donald v McKeown & Ors [2004] NSWCA 285

The trial judge erred by failing to adequately allow for both positive vicissitudes (the possibility of better civilian employment) and negative contingencies (future employment difficulties due to injury), resulting in a manifestly inadequate award for future economic loss; the appropriate sum for future economic loss is $100,000, not $26,000.

Parties
Appellant: Nicholas Donald; First Respondent: Jodie McKeown; Second Respondent: The Nominal Defendant; Third Respondent: New South Wales Police Service
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment Appeal From District Court on Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Damages, Assessment of Economic Loss, Future Economic Loss, Contingencies in Award of Damages, Personal Injuries
Tort Law Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Accidents Damages Assessment of Economic Loss Future Economic Loss Contingencies in Award of Damages Personal Injuries

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Donald

Appellant

Jodie McKeown

First Respondent

The Nominal Defendant

Second Respondent

New South Wales Police Service

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment Appeal From District Court on Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages awarded for future economic loss were manifestly insufficient
  2. 2 Whether failure to consider superannuation, rent concessions, service allowance and prospects for civilian employment led to inadequate damages
  3. 3 Whether proper allowance had been made for positive and negative vicissitudes in assessment of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by failing to adequately allow for both positive vicissitudes (the possibility of better civilian employment) and negative contingencies (future employment difficulties due to injury), resulting in a manifestly inadequate award for future economic loss; the appropriate sum for future economic loss is $100,000, not $26,000.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Future economic loss increased from $26,000 to $100,000.
  • Respondents to pay the appellant's costs.