LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Interference with Award of Damages – Appellate Court Will Only Interfere on Wrong Principle or Erroneous Estimate
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
To justify reversal of damages awards, appellate courts must be satisfied either that the judge acted upon wrong legal principle, or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or very small as to constitute an entirely erroneous estimate of plaintiff's entitlement.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"The law is well settled that in order to justify the reversal of an award of damages by a Court, it will generally be necessary that the appellate court should be satisfied either that: (i) the Judge acted upon some wrong principle of law; or (ii) that the amount awarded was so extremely high or so very small as to make it, in the judgment of the appellate court an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage to which the plaintiff is entitled."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Damages assessment involves discretion, and appellate courts defer to trial court assessments absent clear error. Interference is justified only where: (1) Wrong principle—the judge applied incorrect legal standards, considered irrelevant factors, or ignored relevant ones; or (2) Erroneous estimate—the amount is so excessive or inadequate that no reasonable judge properly directing themselves could award it. Mere disagreement with quantum doesn’t warrant interference—the award must be manifestly wrong. This high threshold respects trial courts’ advantages in assessing injury impact and witnesses’ credibility. It promotes consistency while preventing endless appeals over damages disagreements. The principle balances appellate oversight against finality and recognition that damages assessment isn’t an exact science.