JACKSON v MAZZAFERO [2012] NSWCA 170

JACKSON v MAZZAFERO [2012] NSWCA 170

The appeal was allowed because parts of the damages assessment involved misunderstanding or inadequate treatment of the evidence. The non-economic loss award was within range and was not disturbed, but past economic loss had to be recalculated because the primary judge wrongly treated long service leave as reducing loss and misunderstood evidence about hours and earnings; future economic loss required a higher buffer to reflect continuing loss of earning capacity and possible surgery; future domestic assistance required a higher allowance for likely future needs; and future out-of-pocket expenses had to include the accepted cost of future surgery and an allowance for future treatment. The...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Tort Damages Appeal Concerning Personal Injury Damages After a Fall at Commercial Premises / Appeal From the Judgment of Mc Loughlin DCJ on Quantum of Damages
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment increased from $173,707 to $228,998.72 and trial costs orders set aside.
Legal Topics
['non Economic Loss' 'past Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'domestic Assistance' 'future Out of Pocket Expenses' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'offer of Compromise and Costs']
['tort' 'personal Injury' 'damages' 'civil Procedure'] ['non Economic Loss' 'past Economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'domestic Assistance' 'future Out of Pocket Expenses' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'offer of Compromise and Costs']

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

Tort Damages Appeal Concerning Personal Injury Damages After a Fall at Commercial Premises / Appeal From the Judgment of Mc Loughlin DCJ on Quantum of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in assessing non-economic loss at 26 percent of a most extreme case.' 'Whether the primary judge gave inadequate reasons or misunderstood the evidence in assessing past economic loss.' 'Whether the award for future economic loss or loss of earning capacity was inadequate.' 'Whether the award for future domestic assistance was inadequate.' 'Whether an allowance should have been made for future out-of-pocket expenses, including future surgery.' "Whether the costs orders made after trial should be set aside because the revised damages exceeded the respondents' Offer of Compromise."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because parts of the damages assessment involved misunderstanding or inadequate treatment of the evidence. The non-economic loss award was within range and was not disturbed, but past economic loss had to be recalculated because the primary judge wrongly treated long service leave as reducing loss and misunderstood evidence about hours and earnings; future economic loss required a higher buffer to reflect continuing loss of earning capacity and possible surgery; future domestic assistance required a higher allowance for likely future needs; and future out-of-pocket expenses had to include the accepted cost of future surgery and an allowance for future treatment. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment increased from $173,707 to $228,998.72 and trial costs orders set aside.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'The judgment of the primary judge in favour of the appellant in the amount of $173,707 is set aside.' 'In lieu thereof judgment is entered in favour of the appellant in the amount of $228,998.72.' 'The costs orders made by the primary judge on 10 February 2011 are set aside.' "In lieu thereof the...