The treatment of gratuitous benefits and services received by a plaintiff in quantifying economic loss
Introduction
Damages are intended to be compensatory in nature. They are designed to place an injured party back in the position in which it would have been had the relevant alleged wrong not occurred. While these principles have general acceptance, questions may still arise, including:
- What happens when an independent benefactor steps in to relieve the financial pain of the wrong-doing before damages are assessed? Should the financial impact of that relief be taken into account when quantifying damages, or should it be ignored, with the injured Plaintiff obtaining a "windfall gain" by being, in effect, paid twice?
- What if the injured Plaintiff takes independent action to reduce the financial impact of the loss, and is successful? Should that success relieve the wrongdoer from responsibility for the payment of damages?
In this edition of Damages Matters, Andrew Ross, Partner and Anh Nguyen, Manager in our Sydney office discuss a recent decision of the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal, Powercor Australia Limited v Thomas [2012] VCSA 87, which highlights an exception to the generally accepted principle that damages awarded in tort should aim to restore the Plaintiff to the position they were in had the tortious act not occurred, and should avoid placing the Plaintiff in a "better off" position.
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.
