Hulanicki v Walton

[2015] ACTCA 14

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Damages
2. › Measure of damages
3. › Personal injuries
4. › Assessment of future care needs
5. › Whether primary judge erred in assessing domestic care at three hours per day
6. › Whether adequate reasons given
1. Damages
2. › Measure of damages
3. › Personal injuries
4. › Buffer for contingencies
5. › Risk of early onset dementia
6. › Whether primary judge failed to give effect to intended buffer
1. Damages
2. › Measure of damages
3. › Personal injuries
4. › Future care
5. › Vicissitudes
6. › Whether reduction for vicissitudes constituted double counting where life tables already incorporated such allowance
1. Damages
2. › Measure of damages
3. › Personal injuries
4. › Fund management expenses
5. › Fund management on fund management
6. › Whether fund management expenses should be calculated on total fund including fund management component
7. › Gray v Richards [2014] HCA 40

Quick Take

Where future care damages are assessed by reference to life tables that already incorporate an allowance for vicissitudes, a separate percentage reduction for vicissitudes constitutes impermissible double counting. Fund management expenses must be calculated on the total fund including the fund management component, in accordance with Gray v Richards [2014] HCA 40. The recorded judgment sum should include amounts paid by the respondent's insurer to third parties on behalf of the plaintiff, as the judgment should accurately reflect the total compensation assessed.