Cupac v Cannone

[2015] NSWCA 114

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Motor Accidents Compensation
2. › Assessment of damages
3. › Past and future economic loss
4. › Residual earning capacity
5. › Conflicting expert medical opinions tendered without cross-examination
6. › Whether primary judge erred in assessing gradually reducing loss of capacity
7. › Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 126, 131
1. Damages
2. › Personal injury
3. › Economic loss
4. › Assessment methodology
5. › Whether failure to include inflation factor in calculation of past economic loss constituted appellable error
6. › Whether approximate formula adopted by trial judge was permissible
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Adequacy of reasons
3. › Assessment of damages for economic loss
4. › Whether trial judge gave adequate reasons for adopting middle ground between competing medical opinions
1. Evidence
2. › Expert evidence
3. › Conflicting medical reports tendered without cross-examination
4. › Burden on trial judge
5. › Risk to party bearing onus of proof

Quick Take

A trial judge assessing damages for past and future economic loss is not required to adopt a mathematically precise formula and may use an approximate methodology where precision is impossible, provided the reasoning process is adequately exposed. Failure to expressly include an inflation factor does not constitute appellable error where the formula adopted was intended as an approximation taking into account a range of factors. A trial judge is not bound to accept either extreme of competing medical opinions and may adopt a middle course supported by the evidence.