Carretero v Ioannidis (No 3) [2026] NSWCA 71
(2) The House v The King standard of appellate review is applicable as regards an assessment of non-economic loss as it would be wholly artificial to describe the exercise as one in which there is only one legally correct answer or a unique outcome: [68].
Minister for Immigration v SZVFW (2018) 264 CLR 541; [2018] HCA 30, GLJ v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore (2023) 280 CLR 442; [2023] HCA 32, Moore (a pseudonym) v The King [2024] HCA 30; (2024) 98 ALJR 1119, applied.
(3) There is a line of authority that indicates that the question for the appellate court is whether the amount awarded was within the range available to the trial judge or within “a reasonable range”, and this reflects the necessarily impressionistic nature of the exercise: [69].
Loxton v State of New South Wales [2002] NSWCA 194, Pollard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 99, Brear v James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd (2000) 50 NSWLR 388, [2000] NSWCA 352, applied.