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 2004JUDGMENT 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- RespondentFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40489/03 COUNSEL: R R Bartlett SC/ J Harris- Appellants
P W Neil SC/ J S Drummond- RespondentSOLICITORS: McCourts Solicitors- Appellants
Beilby Poulden Costello- Respondent
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 4120/02 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Gamble ADCJ
CA 40489/03
DC 4120/0318 June 2004SHELLER JA
SANTOW JA
STEIN AJA
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
- AGLC
- LONGHURST v HUNT (No 2) [2004] NSWCA 190
- Case
- [2004] NSWCA 190
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.