Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Girone [2011] QCA 245

I refer to my earlier posting of the trial decision and draw your attention to revision of past and future economic loss based on the assessment of average earnings in the past being considerably less and appreciably so by necessity for the future.

Past loss


  • Interfered with the $450/week loss –
  • $350 net per week over six years – $110,000. Discounted by 15%

Future Loss


  •  Interfered with the $400/week loss –
  •  Adoption of a multiplier

The basis for the preparedness to interfere in the award was it was excessive:

[33] The appellant’s contention is that the trial judge’s assessment of damages was excessive. In Elford v FAI General Insurance Company Limited[5] this Court described the proper approach to an appeal against quantum in a personal injuries case in these terms –

“…if a particular component of such an award is plainly an under-estimate or over-estimate and if substituting a proper figure for that component will substantially alter the total, then the substitution should be made; but if there is nothing more than a wrong estimate of one component which has no substantial effect on the total, the award stands. The pointing out of a relatively small error in one estimated component of a judgment which is in substance a sum of estimates does not necessarily make the judgment as a whole wrong. It may be that some types of mistakes, for example arithmetical errors, will require correction irrespective of their effect on the total award, but the general rule should be as we have stated.”

Brisbane Barrister – David Cormack

Related Posts

Recent Comments