Mason v Demasi [2012] NSWCA 210

Mason v Demasi [2012] NSWCA 210

The appeal was allowed because the primary judge erred in assessing future economic loss by proceeding on the basis that behaviour at Mini Graduates adversely affecting the appellant's employment prospects was not caused by the dog attack, despite earlier findings that the relevant anxiety, concentration difficulties and inappropriate or tangential conversation were consequences of the post traumatic stress disorder caused by the attack. The primary judge also erred in finding there was no possibility the appellant would have sought permanent employment. Those errors made the $25,000 buffer for future economic loss inadequate, although the challenges to non-economic loss, future...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Personal Injury Damages Assessment / Appeal From District Court Judgment Delivered 24 March 2011 After Liability Was Admitted and a New Trial Limited to Damages Had Been Ordered
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['dog Attack' 'psychological Injury' 'post Traumatic Stress Disorder' 'diminution in Earning Capacity' 'past Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'non Economic Loss' 'out of Pocket Expenses']
['torts' 'personal Injury' 'damages' 'appellate Procedure'] ['dog Attack' 'psychological Injury' 'post Traumatic Stress Disorder' 'diminution in Earning Capacity' 'past Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'non Economic Loss' 'out of Pocket Expenses']

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 in Personal Injury Damages Assessment / Appeal From District Court Judgment Delivered 24 March 2011 After Liability Was Admitted and a New Trial Limited to Damages Had Been Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge erred in treating the appellant's behaviour at Mini Graduates as not being the result of the dog attack when assessing earning capacity." "Whether the primary judge's finding that the appellant would not have sought or obtained permanent full-time or part-time employment after November 2005 was justified on the evidence." 'Whether the awards for past and future economic loss were inadequate.' 'Whether the assessment of non-economic loss at 25 per cent of a most extreme case was manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the allowance for future out-of-pocket expenses was inadequate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the primary judge erred in assessing future economic loss by proceeding on the basis that behaviour at Mini Graduates adversely affecting the appellant's employment prospects was not caused by the dog attack, despite earlier findings that the relevant anxiety, concentration difficulties and inappropriate or tangential conversation were consequences of the post traumatic stress disorder caused by the attack. The primary judge also erred in finding there was no possibility the appellant would have sought permanent employment. Those errors made the $25,000 buffer for future economic loss inadequate, although the challenges to non-economic loss, future...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Judgment of the District Court of 24 March 2011 set aside.' 'Judgment for the appellant in the sum of $176,459.50.' 'Judgment to take effect as at 24 March 2011.' "Respondents to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951, if qualified."]