Firth v Sutton (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 109

Firth v Sutton (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 109

The judgment sum had to be calculated by adding interest to the value of the lost common law opportunity but also by adjusting for the timing of Ms Sutton's receipt of benefits under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), because proper compensation for the loss required comparison of the position she would have...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Appeal and Cross Appeal / Consequential Orders After Principal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal allowed; District Court orders 1 and 2 made on 17 March 2009 set aside; judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $28,474.30 to take effect as at 17 March 2009; differential costs orders made below; each party to bear his and her own costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['loss of Opportunity to Pursue Common Law Claim' 'assessment of Damages' 'workers Compensation Act Benefits' 'interest on Damages' 'costs Following Offer of Compromise']
['damages' 'personal Injury' 'workers Compensation' 'civil Procedure'] ['loss of Opportunity to Pursue Common Law Claim' 'assessment of Damages' 'workers Compensation Act Benefits' 'interest on Damages' 'costs Following Offer of Compromise']

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 Appeal and Cross Appeal / Consequential Orders After Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether interest should accrue on the value of Ms Sutton's lost common law claim as part of the calculation of her loss." "Whether the calculation of damages should adjust for the timing of Ms Sutton's receipt of Workers Compensation Act benefits." 'What consequential costs orders should be made in the District Court and on appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment sum had to be calculated by adding interest to the value of the lost common law opportunity but also by adjusting for the timing of Ms Sutton's receipt of benefits under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), because proper compensation for the loss required comparison of the position she would have been in with the position she was actually in, including both the amount and timing of workers compensation receipts.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal allowed; District Court orders 1 and 2 made on 17 March 2009 set aside; judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $28,474.30 to take effect as at 17 March 2009; differential costs orders made below; each party to bear his and her own costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ['Appeal and cross-appeal allowed.' 'Set aside orders 1 and 2 made by the District Court on 17 March 2009 and in lieu thereof order: judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $28,474.30 to take effect as at 17 March 2009.' "The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs on an ordinary party/ party basis up to 11 am on 4...