Parente v Bell [1967] HCA 19

Parente v Bell [1967] HCA 19

Following the Queensland authority on the limitation point, the proceeding was treated as maintainable. Because negligence and apportionment were agreed, the Court assessed the plaintiff's compensable loss. The plaintiff's permanent physical disabilities destroyed his former manual earning capacity, but he was not unemployable. Evidence predicting future currency depreciation was rejected as inadmissible. Damages were assessed at $33,216, including about $26,000 for loss of earning capacity, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover 85 per cent, being $28,233.60, plus costs subject to the exclusion of most costs of the actuary Palmer.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Negligence Action in the Original Jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia / Trial; Negligence Admitted, Apportionment Agreed, Damages Assessed
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff for $28,233.60 and costs, excluding the costs of the witness Palmer except costs incurred in obtaining his certificate.
Legal Topics
['motor Vehicle Collision' 'contributory Negligence and Apportionment' 'assessment of Damages' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'admissibility of Actuarial Evidence' 'limitation Period Against Personal Representative']
['tort Law' 'personal Injury' 'negligence' 'civil Procedure' 'damages'] ['motor Vehicle Collision' 'contributory Negligence and Apportionment' 'assessment of Damages' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'admissibility of Actuarial Evidence' 'limitation Period Against Personal Representative']

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

Personal Injuries Negligence Action in the Original Jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia / Trial; Negligence Admitted, Apportionment Agreed, Damages Assessed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the action against the administrator of the deceased driver's estate was maintainable in light of s. 15D of The Common Law Practice Act Q. as affected by The Law Reform (Limitations of Actions) Act of 1956 Q." "What damages should be assessed for the plaintiff's personal injuries, including loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, and possible future medical costs." 'Whether actuarial evidence about future depreciation in the purchasing power of money was admissible in assessing damages.' 'What judgment should be entered after applying the agreed 85 per cent responsibility of the defendant and 15 per cent responsibility of the plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

Following the Queensland authority on the limitation point, the proceeding was treated as maintainable. Because negligence and apportionment were agreed, the Court assessed the plaintiff's compensable loss. The plaintiff's permanent physical disabilities destroyed his former manual earning capacity, but he was not unemployable. Evidence predicting future currency depreciation was rejected as inadmissible. Damages were assessed at $33,216, including about $26,000 for loss of earning capacity, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover 85 per cent, being $28,233.60, plus costs subject to the exclusion of most costs of the actuary Palmer.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff for $28,233.60 and costs, excluding the costs of the witness Palmer except costs incurred in obtaining his certificate.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff recover from the defendant $28,233.60.' 'The plaintiff recover the costs of the action other than the costs of the witness Palmer, except such costs as were incurred in obtaining his certificate.' 'The usual order as to exhibits was made.']