What happened

The claimant suffered a leg injury and post-traumatic stress disorder in a 2005 attack by the defendants' dog. Liability was admitted, followed by damages litigation and an earlier appeal. Despite a long absence from paid employment, she later obtained a childcare qualification and part-time work, with evidence of anxiety and concentration difficulties at work.

The issues

The issue was whether the trial judge had excluded work-disrupting behaviour from the earnings assessment despite earlier finding that it resulted from the attack. The court also examined whether the prospect of permanent part-time or full-time work without the injury had been wrongly discounted.

The court's decision

The court required the relevant workplace symptoms and the prospect of permanent part-time employment to be taken into account. Uncertainty about when and for how long future losses would occur justified a higher lump sum. Challenges to non-economic loss, past economic loss and future expenses did not succeed.

Understanding the figures

Future economic loss, including superannuation, rose from AUD 25,000 to AUD 125,000. The total judgment increased from AUD 76,459.50 to AUD 176,459.50, effective from 24 March 2011. The defendants were separately ordered to pay appeal costs.

What this case shows

A long break from paid work does not eliminate the prospect of future employment. Study, voluntary work and actual attempts to return can inform that assessment. Reduced earning capacity and proof that a particular period of unemployment resulted from the injury remain distinct questions.

Why another case may differ

This was a second damages appeal following the 2009 remittal; the dog owners' liability was not contested. Some adverse trial findings about symptoms and credibility remained undisturbed. Neither the lump sum nor the historical non-economic-loss valuation supplies a tariff for another claimant.

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? →