Iacopetta v Woolworths Limited

THE COURT: The Court is of the unanimous opinion that the appeal in this matter should be dismissed. We consider that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle and we give our reasons in short form only.

Substantially for the reasons given by the trial judge, we are of the opinion that the essential error that was said to infect his Honour’s reasons, being that contained at [188] of his Honour's reasons, has not been made out.

The appellant’s focus on the first phrase of that paragraph failed to address the balance of what his Honour said, namely, that the consensus of the medical opinion was that the plaintiff had “recovered from the effects of the accident”, with the riders which his Honour then nominated, namely, that:

His Honour accepted, in that paragraph, that the accident was traumatic, but that the consequential effects are now of somewhat lesser gravity. His Honour's views are supported by the medical opinions.

As to economic loss, his Honour was entitled to conclude on the evidence that apart from an occasional day, and a period required to be off work should she have surgery, the appellant continued to have an undiminished earning capacity.

As to the claim for domestic assistance, that claim could not stand with the unchallenged findings of his Honour's judgment.

This case essentially turned on credit. No basis has been demonstrated for appellant interference with his Honour's comprehensive adverse findings against the appellant and her husband.

The order of the Court, therefore, is that the appeal be dismissed with costs.