SANTIAGO v BARCLAY BROS [1995] NSWCA 416

SANTIAGO v BARCLAY BROS [1995] NSWCA 416

The trial judge erred only with respect to the assessment of the need for future services (should be based on three hours per day, not two) and the failure to allow for annual endoscopy testing. In all other respects, the award of damages was justified on the evidence. The award should be increased accordingly.

Parties
Appellant: Santiago; Respondent: Barclay Bros
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part
Legal Topics
Adequacy of Damages, Assessment of Damages, Appeal Procedure
Personal Injuries Adequacy of Damages Assessment of Damages Appeal Procedure

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santiago

Appellant

Barclay Bros

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in assessing damages for future economic loss, cost of swimming pool, future services, future medical and other treatment, and general damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred only with respect to the assessment of the need for future services (should be based on three hours per day, not two) and the failure to allow for annual endoscopy testing. In all other respects, the award of damages was justified on the evidence. The award should be increased accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part

Orders

  • Judgment below set aside except as to costs.
  • Judgment for plaintiff (appellant) in sum of $1,909,483 to take effect from the same date as the previous judgment.