ARMAGHANIAN v JOHN FAIRFAX & SONS PTY LTD [1999] NSWSC 425

ARMAGHANIAN v JOHN FAIRFAX & SONS PTY LTD [1999] NSWSC 425

The Plaintiff did not prove that he was totally disabled or incapacitated by significant pain. The accepted evidence established some loss of efficient use of the back and inability to perform unrestricted bending, twisting, lifting or his pre-accident machinist fitter and turner work, but he had not shown...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Claim Alleging Workplace Negligence by Former Employer / New Trial in the Common Law Division Limited to Assessment of Damages for Past Economic Loss Since Employment Ceased and Future Economic Loss After the Court of Appeal Set Aside Those Awards
Outcome
Damages findings made; parties directed to calculate the amount.
Legal Topics
['assessment of Damages' 'past Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'earning Capacity' 'residual Work Capacity' 'credibility of Medical Evidence' 'vicissitudes Discount']
['tort Law' 'personal Injury' 'employment Injury Damages'] ['assessment of Damages' 'past Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'earning Capacity' 'residual Work Capacity' 'credibility of Medical Evidence' 'vicissitudes Discount']

Source-derived case record

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 Injury Damages Claim Alleging Workplace Negligence by Former Employer / New Trial in the Common Law Division Limited to Assessment of Damages for Past Economic Loss Since Employment Ceased and Future Economic Loss After the Court of Appeal Set Aside Those Awards

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What amount should be assessed for past economic loss since the Plaintiff ceased employment.' 'What amount should be assessed for future economic loss.' 'Whether the Plaintiff proved that he was totally disabled or more significantly restricted than being unable to perform unrestricted bending, twisting or lifting.' "How the Plaintiff's pre-accident earning capacity and post-accident residual earning capacity should be valued."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff did not prove that he was totally disabled or incapacitated by significant pain. The accepted evidence established some loss of efficient use of the back and inability to perform unrestricted bending, twisting, lifting or his pre-accident machinist fitter and turner work, but he had not shown incapacity for bench work or work such as ticket selling or service station console operation. Economic loss was therefore to be calculated by comparing likely earnings without the accident against residual earning capacity in suitable work, with a 10% discount to comparable post-1995 no-accident earnings because of uncertainty after the Defendant's move to Chullora, a 10% reduction to...

Court Disposition

Damages findings made; parties directed to calculate the amount.

Orders

  • ['Reasons published.' 'Matter stood over to enable the parties to make the appropriate calculations.']