Johnson, Victor Ross v. Hegarty, Ian Robert [1981] FCA 158

Johnson, Victor Ross v. Hegarty, Ian Robert [1981] FCA 158

The respondent's pension under the Superannuation Act 1976 (Commonwealth) was not to be taken into account to reduce damages for loss of earning capacity. The Court considered itself bound by High Court authority, particularly Graham v. Baker and Jones v. Gleeson, whose facts corresponded so closely to the respondent's case that they were indistinguishable. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and, by agreement after the hearing, the cross-appeal was allowed by increasing the award for future economic loss by $2,500, resulting in judgment for the respondent for $109,500 and costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 1981
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal in a Personal Injury Damages Action / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; judgment for the respondent in the sum of $109,500 and costs.
Legal Topics
['loss of Earning Capacity' 'disability Pension' 'mitigation of Damages' 'collateral Benefits' 'discount Rate for Future Economic Loss']
['torts' 'damages' 'personal Injury' 'superannuation'] ['loss of Earning Capacity' 'disability Pension' 'mitigation of Damages' 'collateral Benefits' 'discount Rate for Future Economic Loss']

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

Appeal and Cross Appeal in a Personal Injury Damages Action / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether pension payments received or payable to the respondent under the Superannuation Act 1976 (Commonwealth) should be taken into account to reduce damages for loss of earning capacity.' "Whether decisions of the High Court of Australia concerning pensions and collateral benefits were distinguishable from the respondent's case." 'Whether the award for future economic loss should be increased on the cross-appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's pension under the Superannuation Act 1976 (Commonwealth) was not to be taken into account to reduce damages for loss of earning capacity. The Court considered itself bound by High Court authority, particularly Graham v. Baker and Jones v. Gleeson, whose facts corresponded so closely to the respondent's case that they were indistinguishable. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and, by agreement after the hearing, the cross-appeal was allowed by increasing the award for future economic loss by $2,500, resulting in judgment for the respondent for $109,500 and costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; judgment for the respondent in the sum of $109,500 and costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'The cross-appeal be allowed so that there will be, in substitution for the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, judgment for the respondent in the sum of $109,500 and costs.' "The appellant pay the respondent's costs of and incident to the appeal and...