LONGHURST v HUNT (No 2)

Case [2004] NSWCA 190


CITATION: LONGHURST & ANOR V HUNT (No 2) [2004] NSWCA 190
HEARING DATE(S): 9 February 2004, 2 March 2004, 31 March 2004
JUDGMENT DATE:
18 June 2004
JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Santow JA at 2; Stein AJA at 3
DECISION: Orders made

PARTIES :

David Longhurst- First Appellant
Brian Kenneth Thompson- Second Appellant
Christopher Hunt- Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40489/03
COUNSEL: R R Bartlett SC/ J Harris- Appellants
P W Neil SC/ J S Drummond- Respondent
SOLICITORS: McCourts Solicitors- Appellants
Beilby Poulden Costello- Respondent
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 4120/02
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Gamble ADCJ
- 1 -


                          CA 40489/03
                          DC 4120/03

                          SHELLER JA
                          SANTOW JA
                          STEIN AJA

                          18 June 2004
LONGHURST & ANOR –V- HUNT
Judgment No 2

1 SHELLER JA: I agree with Stein AJA.

2 SANTOW JA: I agree with Stein AJA.

3 STEIN AJA: Since delivering judgment in this matter on 31 March 2004, and before the orders have been taken out, it has been drawn to attention that the court made no specific reference or adjustment to the damages for past economic loss.

4 It is plain from paragraph [80] that such an adjustment was intended to both past and future economic loss.

5 Accordingly, it is appropriate to make the orders sought by the appellant with the addition of the respondent having a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act 1951 with respect to the costs of the appeal.


                  * * *

Last Modified: 07/02/2004

Details
AGLC
LONGHURST v HUNT (No 2) [2004] NSWCA 190
Case
[2004] NSWCA 190
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, comprising Sheller and Santow JJA and Stein AJA, considered the dispute between the plaintiff, Longhurst, and the defendant, Hunt. The proceedings concerned the plaintiff's claim for damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the plaintiff had established a causal link between the accident and the injuries for which he sought damages. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the plaintiff's current complaints were a consequence of the accident or arose from other causes.

The Court's reasoning focused on the principles of causation in tort law. It was held that the plaintiff bore the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the accident caused or materially contributed to his injuries. The Court considered the medical evidence presented and concluded that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that his current condition was attributable to the accident. The evidence did not establish that the accident was the cause of the plaintiff's ongoing symptoms, and therefore, the necessary causal connection was not made out.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders made

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.