Rowe v Edwards [1934] HCA 32

Rowe v Edwards [1934] HCA 32

The jury's award of £50 for general damages in light of serious, permanent injuries was so grossly inadequate that no reasonable jury, properly instructed and acting reasonably with regard to the evidence, could have arrived at such a figure. This unreasonableness justifies the intervention of the appellate court; a new trial should be ordered, limited to the assessment of damages.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: Reginald Lloyd Rowe (by his next friend); Respondent; Defendant: Leslie Malcolm Edwards
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Damages, Jury Verdicts, Appeals, New Trial, Inadequacy of Damages
Torts Personal Injury Damages Jury Verdicts Appeals New Trial Inadequacy of 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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reginald Lloyd Rowe (by his next friend)

Appellant; Plaintiff

Leslie Malcolm Edwards

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury's award of general damages (£50) for serious and permanent personal injuries was so inadequate as to justify a new trial.
  2. 2 Whether a new trial should be limited to quantum of damages or granted generally.

Ratio Decidendi

The jury's award of £50 for general damages in light of serious, permanent injuries was so grossly inadequate that no reasonable jury, properly instructed and acting reasonably with regard to the evidence, could have arrived at such a figure. This unreasonableness justifies the intervention of the appellate court; a new trial should be ordered, limited to the assessment of damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Judgment of Supreme Court discharged.
  • New trial limited to the question of damages.