The ACT Court of Appeal held that a primary judge is not required to apply a Malec v JC Hutton discount for the possibility of future improvement in a brain-injured plaintiff's earning capacity or care needs unless that possibility has an evidentiary foundation beyond speculation; a cautious expert suggestion that pharmacotherapy 'may have some benefits' was insufficient. The majority (McCallum CJ and Baker J, McWilliam J dissenting) upheld a $400,000 buffer for a 'buddy' to provide vocational prompting and structure as a compensable need distinct from loss of earnings, general damages, and domestic attendant care, though the Court was divided on whether this constituted double compensation. The Court disallowed an allowance for pet ownership as impractical given the supervision it would require, but upheld awards for a personal trainer, $1 million for lifetime funds management by a trustee, and the overall assessment methodology.
The full text is available to signed-in members.