Palma v Nominal Defendant

[2016] NSWCA 12

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Damages
2. › Motor accident
3. › Future economic loss
4. › Assessment by buffer versus capitalised weekly sum
5. › Whether trial judge erred in awarding buffer
6. › Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 126
1. Damages
2. › Motor accident
3. › Past and future domestic assistance
4. › Onus of proof on plaintiff
5. › Whether trial judge erred in finding appellant did not establish need for care
6. › Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 141B
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Findings of credit by trial judge
4. › Whether adverse credit finding was erroneous
5. › Advantage of trial judge as primary trier of fact

Quick Take

A buffer for future economic loss remains an appropriate method of assessment where the plaintiff's incapacity is not particularly evident at the time of trial but is likely to become so at a future, unspecified time, and this approach complies with s 126 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) when the reasons are read fairly as a whole. Adverse credit findings based on evidence of secretive employment arrangements and concealment of earning capacity from Centrelink may properly be used to assess a plaintiff's true work capacity, though such findings do not necessarily mean the plaintiff has recovered from injuries.