PAYET v GLEESON [1993] NSWCA 207

PAYET v GLEESON [1993] NSWCA 207

By majority, the Court found no inconsistency in the Master's assessment and upheld the judgment, holding that small amounts for economic loss were justified on the evidence and that economic loss must be proven. Kirby P in dissent found internal inconsistency and would have ordered a re-trial; however, the majority dismissed the appeal.

Parties
Appellant: URJ Payet; Respondent: Gleeson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 1993
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority), cross-appeal dismissed, appellant to pay respondent's costs of appeal, no order as to costs of cross-appeal.
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Accidents, Assessment of Damages, Economic Loss, General Damages, Interest
Damages Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Accidents Assessment of Damages Economic Loss General Damages Interest

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

URJ Payet

Appellant

Gleeson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are internal inconsistencies in the assessment of damages between general damages and economic loss
  2. 2 Whether principles in Watts v Rake and Purkess v Crittenden were correctly applied in relation to pre-existing conditions and onus of proof
  3. 3 Whether the damages for economic loss were properly calculated given unreliable evidence

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court found no inconsistency in the Master's assessment and upheld the judgment, holding that small amounts for economic loss were justified on the evidence and that economic loss must be proven. Kirby P in dissent found internal inconsistency and would have ordered a re-trial; however, the majority dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority), cross-appeal dismissed, appellant to pay respondent's costs of appeal, no order as to costs of cross-appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Cross-appeal dismissed.