CULLEN v SEMA [1998] NSWCA 65

CULLEN v SEMA [1998] NSWCA 65

The trial judge was entitled to make an assessment of likely damages for professional negligence without expert evidence, as sufficient material existed including facts and medical opinion. No error was demonstrated in method or calculation for workers compensation lump sum losses or in comparison with common law settlement. There was no material inconsistency between the methods used for assessment.

Parties
Defendant: Cullen; Plaintiff: Sema; Third Party: Kellogg (Australia) Pty Ltd; Defendant: Second defendant (barrister)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligent Advice by Solicitor, Workers Compensation, Damages Assessment, Common Law Proceedings, Irrevocable Election Under Workers Compensation Legislation
Professional Negligence Negligent Advice by Solicitor Workers Compensation Damages Assessment Common Law Proceedings Irrevocable Election Under Workers Compensation Legislation

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cullen

Defendant

Sema

Plaintiff

Kellogg (Australia) Pty Ltd

Third Party

Second defendant (barrister)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient evidence existed to assess the value of loss for professional negligence
  2. 2 Whether expert evidence was required for the assessment of likely damages
  3. 3 Whether there was inconsistency between methods used for assessing common law and workers compensation lump sums

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to make an assessment of likely damages for professional negligence without expert evidence, as sufficient material existed including facts and medical opinion. No error was demonstrated in method or calculation for workers compensation lump sum losses or in comparison with common law settlement. There was no material inconsistency between the methods used for assessment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal dismissed with costs