Australia: Trial Judge's awards for economic loss and attendant care set aside

Curwoods Case Note
Last Updated: 18 October 2010
Article by Nathan Morehead

Judgment date: 16 October 2006. Arnott v Choy [2010] NSWCA 2569. New South Wales Court of Appeal1

In Brief

  • A finding as to whether a plaintiff has a residual earning capacity will be dictated by the medical and lay evidence. For a finding to be sustainable, the medical and lay evidence relied upon must be considered and applied as a whole, not selectively.
  • A plaintiff is required to mitigate the damage caused by his/her loss of earning capacity by taking reasonable steps to pursue alternative employment opportunities. This will involve consideration of the information that was in the possession of a plaintiff at the relevant time, the factors relied upon by a plaintiff in acting or failing to act, the plaintiff's accident-related injuries and, therefore, the steps reasonably available to the plaintiff.
  • An award of damages for attendant care may be found to be excessive if there is evidence which indicates a plaintiff retains some capacity for independent living.
  • Damages awarded for future attendant care and future case management should be closely scrutinised. There exists the potential for over-compensation on the basis that, even though they are separate heads of damage, the same services/facilities may be incorporated into each of them to form the basis for an award.


On 29 January 2004 the respondent, Mr Choy, sustained a severe closed head injury and facial fractures when the vehicle he was driving collided with a truck being driven by the appellant, Mr Arnott. Mr Choy was left with frontal lobe brain damage. The parties agreed that Mr Choy had been guilty of contributory negligence and that the correct deduction should be 20%. His Honour Judge Levy awarded Mr Choy damages of $2,692,664.54, reduced to $2,154,131.60 to account for his contributory negligence.

The damages awarded for past ($175,951) and future ($760,185) economic loss were underpinned by a finding that Mr Choy was, and would remain, unemployable by reason of his accident-related injuries and consequential disabilities and impairments. Future attendant care ($284,900), future case management services ($247,252) and ad hoc or drop-in supervision by a case manager ($463,369) were also awarded over Mr Choy's projected life expectancy.

When assessing damages for these heads, Judge Levy placed particular weight on the reports by Mr Choy's treating rehabilitation specialist, Dr Veerabangsa, and a joint occupational therapy and psychological assessment report by Mr and Ms Ravagnani. This was because the former had a superior opportunity to observe Mr Choy over a lengthy period of time and become familiar with his presentation whilst the latter were able to consider the evidence of Mr Choy and various family members and, therefore, provide reasonable estimates when examined against the tasks required. The appellant's qualified evidence was rejected.

Court of Appeal

Mr Arnott challenged the amounts awarded in respect of past and future economic loss, future attendant care services and case management. It was submitted that Judge Levy incorrectly found Mr Choy is permanently unemployable and had no residual earning capacity, incorrectly calculated past economic loss and erred in the amounts he allowed for case management.

Mr Choy cross-appealed, complaining Judge Levy failed to use the correct figure or calculate damages over the entire period of his past economic loss.

Earning Capacity

Although the evidence suggested that Mr Choy's concentration and memory were adversely affected by his accident-related injuries, he gave evidence that he intended to seek employment. In fact, he acknowledged he could undertake labouring work. Despite that evidence, Judge Levy remarked that such concessions needed to be viewed in the context of Mr Choy's cognitive, emotional and behavioural difficulties, and his over-confident manner. These factors were thought to have an adverse overshadowing impact on Mr Choy's ability to obtain and maintain any form of remunerative employment and his efforts to attempt to exercise an earning capacity.

Mr Arnott asserted that Judge Levy failed to address the extent to which Mr Choy's earning capacity had been impaired and the extent to which that impairment was productive of loss. It was contended that the finding that Mr Choy was, and would remain, unemployed was not sustainable. Both Mr Choy's evidence, and the overwhelming weight of the medical evidence, supported the conclusion that whilst Mr Choy suffered a reduced earning capacity, he was capable of working full-time in suitable employment. It was suggested that whilst Judge Levy referred to much of the medical evidence, he generally rejected that which suggested Mr Choy was fit for employment.

Mr Choy submitted the medical and lay evidence supported the conclusion by Judge Levy, the criticisms of Mr Arnott's medical evidence were soundly based and the evidence, taken collectively, did not demonstrate that Mr Choy was capable of full-time employment.

McColl JA, who delivered the leading judgment, found that Judge Levy erred in concluding that Mr Choy had, in effect, no residual earning capacity. The weight of medical opinion, including Dr Veerabangsa, who was well aware of Mr Choy's tendency to be overconfident, was to the effect that he did. The frequent invocation of the notion that Mr Choy's overconfidence was a disqualifying factor in obtaining employment was also thought to defy common experience.

Although the objective evidence pointed to the fact that Mr Choy's emotional, behavioural and cognitive residual disabilities inhibited his capacity to perform in a competitive manner in full employment, he was found to still be capable of working in a supported environment where wages could be generated.

An agency known as Head2work assisted Mr Choy in his post-accident return-to-work efforts. Judge Levy found this agency had been unsuccessful in placing Mr Choy in employment between 2004 and 2007, a factor which he relied upon to reinforce his conclusion that Mr Choy had no significant or measurable residual earning capacity. McColl JA found that doing so failed to acknowledge a number of factors. Firstly, during the year of the accident Mr Choy demonstrated significant ability. This was reflected in the medical evidence and the fact that, shortly after his discharge from hospital, Mr Choy enrolled in and completed a motor mechanics course at TAFE and achieved passes and credits. Secondly, Mr Choy undertook two work trials where he appears to have been able to work at least 20 hours on a weekly basis. Thirdly, he worked in his parents' business at various times.

The Court also found that Judge Levy incorrectly rejected Mr Choy's evidence that he was capable of labouring work by reason of his cognitive and emotional difficulties and his overconfidence. This was because Mr Choy suffered no continuing physical limitations and there was no evidence that his cognitive and emotional disabilities caused him to behave in an anti-social manner.

As far as the future is concerned, the Court ordered that a 30% discount for vicissitudes be applied to acknowledge the uncertainties of supported employment.

Mitigation of Damages

The appellant submitted that, from at least 2007, Mr Choy failed to mitigate the damage caused by his loss of earning capacity and damages should be reduced accordingly.

At the commencement of 2007 Head2work discontinued their efforts to assist Mr Choy in seeking employment. Thereafter, and prior to the trial in July 2008, it appears he made no effort to locate work. Mr Choy indicated that it was his preference to await the conclusion of the pending Court proceedings and thereby minimise any inconvenience to his prospective employer, prior to returning to the workforce.

At paragraph 161 of her judgment, Justice McColl found that Judge Levy did not err in finding that Mr Choy had not failed to mitigate his damages. This was because Dr Smith concluded, in that section of the report which the primary judge adopted, that Mr Choy suffers a slower mentation and has difficulties with insight, reasoning and coping with significant information:

A person with such disabilities might reasonably, in my view, be overwhelmed by the prospect of having to deal both with seeking employment and complying with the demands of an impending court case, particularly where many demands are made on the person to attend medical examinations. In this respect it should be noted that the period in which the respondent did not seek work coincided with the commencement of the proceedings in April 2007 and the hearing in July 2008. In my view it was open to the primary judge, having regard to the disabilities he concluded afflicted the respondent, to conclude the latter's explanation for not seeking work in the 18 or so months prior to trial was cogent rather than baseless.

Future Attendant Care

The appellant made a number of complaints on this issue. Firstly, Judge Levy failed to properly address Mr Choy's evidence, as well as the medical and other evidence, in relation to his capacity to engage in domestic chores and perform his daily activities independently. Secondly, His Honour erred in rejecting the report by the appellant's qualified Occupational Therapist, Ms Zeman. Thirdly, the award was excessive in light of the evidence.

The respondent submitted the findings by Judge Levy were open on his assessment of the expert opinion and it was available to His Honour to reject, and treat as unreliable, Mr Choy's evidence of his capacity to care for himself.

The Court found that all grounds of appeal on this issue had not been established, for two primary reasons. Firstly, Judge Levy was entitled to conclude that the assessment Ms Zeman paid insufficient attention to the cognitive, emotional and behavioural issues that generated Mr Choy's need for domestic assistance. Secondly, His Honour was entitled to conclude that the assessment by Ms Zeman was limited due to the fact she did not have the opportunity to interview Mr Choy's mother whereas Mr and Ms Ravagnani did so.

Case Manager

The appellant submitted the finding that Mr Choy required case management failed to acknowledge the weight of the evidence to the effect that Mr Choy was capable of independent living. This included the absence of reference in most, if not all, of the medical reports to Mr Choy needing any sort of case manager, Mr Choy's own evidence regarding his capacity to organise his life and the fact Ms Zeman did not find any requirement for case management.

McColl JA found the evidence did not support the premise that Mr Choy requires a comprehensive care regime which should follow a supported accommodation and community living model, for various reasons. Firstly, throughout the period he was engaged in rehabilitation, Mr Choy demonstrated a capacity to attend his TAFE course, regain his driver's licence and work satisfactorily at two motor mechanic shops. Secondly, Mr Choy retains a residual earning capacity. Thirdly, Mr Choy's treating medical practitioners opined he was capable of independent living. Fourthly, there was no medical evidence to support the proposition that Mr Choy was not capable of functioning safely within the community.

Although the reports by Mr and Ms Ravagnani and Ms Zeman, and the evidence given by Mr Choy's mother, indicated Mr Choy may require assistance if living independently, it did not support the conclusion that he required that assistance on the scale allowed by Judge Levy, nor drop-in assistance of the nature identified in the joint Ravagnani report.

In a comment that has universal application, Justice McColl made the following comments at paragraph 202 of her judgment:

Further there is, as the appellant submits, over-compensation in the amounts the primary judge allowed. It is difficult, for example, to understand why the respondent needs domestic monitoring, if he is paying for domestic assistance as part of the award for future attendant care. The same comment can be made about the need for a case manager to deal with nutritional needs, another area which should be covered by the domestic assistance in respect of meal preparation.

McColl JA found the reference to Mr Choy having access to "appropriate services and assistance" unclear and the award for assistance with prompting for medications at eight hours on a monthly basis "manifestly excessive". Her Honour arrived at the following conclusion at paragraph 206 of her judgment:

Finally, I would observe that another way of testing the proposition the respondent was over-compensated is to look at the total award for the heads of attendant care and case management: 21.8 hours a week – more than half a working week. In my view the evidence did not support the proposition that the respondent needed paid assistance to such an extent.


This case is a timely reminder that awards made for various heads of damage must be supported by the medical and lay evidence and internally consistent. It is erroneous for selective parts of a medical report to be used as justification for a conclusion, particularly if contradictory remarks appear in other sections of the report. Insurers should carefully and comprehensively review the medical evidence relied upon by Assessors and Judges to support an award of compensation for each head of damage.

Whether or not a claimant has taken reasonable steps to mitigate the damage caused by his/her loss of earning capacity is to be determined on the basis of the information within his/her possession at the relevant time and the balancing of baseless and cogent factors. This inevitably involves consideration of the medical evidence and an accurate understanding of the nature, extent and duration of the claimant's injuries. An insurer's capacity to successfully demonstrate that a claimant has not discharged his/her statutory obligation will be difficult if the accident has been productive of an acquired brain injury or significant psychiatric condition.

Insurers should pay particular regard to the activities of daily living which are said to lie outside the capabilities of a claimant and thereby justify an award of damages for future attendant care and future case management. As was highlighted in this case, there can be some degree of overlap between the two, leading to the possibility of over-compensation. One method by which this can be measured is by calculating the number of hours awarded on a weekly basis in the context of the available evidence. This may provide some guidance as to whether an award is excessive and unsupported by the evidence.

1. McColl JA and Basten JA.

Ranked No 1 - Australia's fastest growing law firm' (Legal Partnership Survey, The Australian July 2010)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.