The Court of Appeal varied the trial judge's damages award by reducing it by $76,308.30, holding that the general damages assessment was not manifestly excessive, the 15% discount for contingencies in calculating future economic loss was not insufficient, and the assessment of future care was largely upheld. On the specific issue of whether a commercial agency fee is properly included in the market cost of future care services anticipated to be provided by relatives under Griffiths v Kerkemeyer principles, the Court applied Grincelis v House to hold that such fees form part of the reasonable market cost of care, though the overall future care figure was adjusted downward.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.