What happened

The insurer admitted liability for the 2013 accident, leaving quantum for trial. The main continuing injury concerned the right shoulder, and the plaintiff had railway employment and a food business. Much of the replacement-labour expert case was abandoned around trial, leading to several alternative calculations.

The issues

The issue was what loss the business and tax records, replacement labour and post-accident employment choices actually established. Activity footage, expert opinions and gaps in treatment were important to the extent of disability and the projected future losses.

The court's decision

The court accepted a real shoulder injury and some past earnings loss, assessed globally at $40,000. Business profitability, other employment options and deficiencies in the evidence defeated future economic loss. Adding agreed past expenses of $23,826.57 produced judgment for $63,826.57, with costs separate.

Understanding the figures

The actual $63,826.57 judgment comprised $40,000 past earnings loss and $23,826.57 past expenses. Much of the latter had already been paid under s83, so the whole judgment was not necessarily new money payable. The hypothetical $50,000 future-loss allowance was not awarded, and no future treatment allowance was made.

What this case shows

Increased labour costs or a job change do not themselves establish that the whole difference was caused by an accident. The case illustrates the need to connect medical limitations, actual income records and employment choices, and to prove future loss separately from an accepted past loss.

Why another case may differ

This was a quantum decision under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 for a 2013 accident. It did not newly determine liability or eligibility for non-economic loss. Findings about the deficient evidence and business profitability cannot be transferred automatically to other self-employed claimants or shoulder injuries.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →