Case: Groves v United Pacific Transport Pty Ltd and Thompson [1965] Qd R 62
Outcome: referred to
Gibbs J pointed out that the principle in Gourley is not confined to damages for personal injury. He specifically noted that in Rubber Improvements the House of Lords had applied the principle to ' the assessment of damages for loss of profit arising from libel '. His Honour added (at 223-224) that: 'Speaking generally, the principle will apply only where the earnings or profits lost would have been taxable if the plaintiff had received them but the damages awarded to compensate the plaintiff are not taxable: see Parsons v B.N.M. Laboratories Ltd [[1964] 1 QB 95, at 124-126, 133-135] and Groves v United Pacific Transport Pty Ltd and Thompson [[1965] Qd R 62 , at 63].' 65 In the passage in his judgment in Atlas Tiles quoted at [61] above, Gibbs J referred with approval to his own judgment in Groves v United Pacific Transport, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Later in his judgment in Atlas Tiles , Gibbs J expressly stated (at 223) that he adhered to the opinion he had expressed in Groves v United Pacific Transport that in Australia an award of damages for personal injuries is not taxable. 66 The issue in Groves v United Pacific Transport , which predated both Atlas Tiles and Cullen v Trappell, was whether Gourley required income tax to be taken into account in the assessment of damages in respect of earnings during the period up to the date of trial . Gibbs J quoted the remark of Pearson LJ in Parsons v BNM Laboratories, a case also cited by Gibbs J in Atlas Tiles, that (at 134): 'the principle of the Gourley Case is applicable only if the lost earnings or profits are taxable and the damages are not '. (Emphasis added.) 67 In Groves v United Pacific Transport, the plaintiff apparently argued that the damages would be taxable under the predecessor to s 26(d) of the ITAA 1936 ([64] above). Gibbs J rejected the argument (at 64-65): 'The answer is in my opinion to be found by considering the true nature of the damages awarded in such a case. In Graham v Baker [1961] HCA 48 ; (1961) 106 CLR 340 , at pp 346-7, Dixon CJ, and Kitto and Taylor JJ said: "So far the matter has been discussed as if the right of a plaintiff whose earning capacity has been diminished by the defendant's negligence is concerned with two separate matters, i.e., loss of wages up to the time of trial and an estimated future loss because of his diminished earning capacity. It is, we think, necessary to point out that this is not so. A plaintiff's right of action is complete at the time when his injuries are sustained and if it were possible in the ordinary course of things to obtain an assessment of his damages immediately it would be necessary to make an assessment of the probable economic loss which would result from his injuries. But for at least two obvious reasons it has been found convenient to assess an injured plaintiff's loss by reference to the actual loss of wages which occurs up to the time of trial and which can be more or less precisely ascertained and then, having regard to the plaintiff's proved condition at the time of trial, to attempt some assessment of his future loss." Their Honours went on to say that "an injured plaintiff recovers not merely because his earning capacity has been diminished but because the diminution of his earning capacity is or may be productive of financial loss. Although it is usual and convenient in an action for damages for personal injuries to say that an amount is awarded for loss of wages or other earnings, the damages are really awarded for the impairment of the plaintiff's earning capacity that has resulted from his injuries. This is so even if an amount is separately quantified and described as special damages for loss of earnings up to the time of trial. Damages for personal injuries are not rightly described as damages for loss of income. It follows that in my opinion an award of damages for personal injuries does not come within the description of "an indemnity for or in respect of any loss of income" within s 26(j) of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act and that such an award is not income in accordance with ordinary concepts so as to be taxable apart from the special provisions of that section. In determining what financial loss the plaintiff has probably suffered up to the date of trial by reason of the impairment of his earning capacity, as well as in considering what financial loss he is likely to suffer in future, I must therefore take his tax position into account.' See also Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Slaven [1984] FCA 31 ; (1984) 1 FCR 1 , at 22-23, per curiam ; CSR Ltd v Eddy [2005] HCA 64 ; (2005) 80 ALJR 59 , at 69 [30], per Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Heydon JJ; Husher v Husher [1999] HCA 47 ; (1999) 197 CLR 138 , at 143 [7], per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ. 68 The decision in Groves v United Pacific Transport, given that it was approved in Atlas v Tiles and Cullen v Trappell , establishes that an award of damages for loss of earning capacity is not taxable even if calculated precisely by reference to earnings lost prior to the date of the trial. The principle applies to an award of pre-judgment interest, which has been held to have the character of a receipt of a capital nature: Whitaker v Commissioner of Taxation (1998) 82 FCR 261. The reason is that the award of an interest is an integral and essential element in the compensation for the plaintiff's list or diminished earning capacity: at 264, per Black CJ. 69 The following propositions seem to me to emerge from the authorities I have discussed. 1. The Gourley principle applies in Australia to damages awards in personal injury cases. That is, a damages award, insofar as it compensates the plaintiff in respect of loss of income, must be assessed after taking into account the plaintiff's liability to pay tax on the income he or she would have derived but for the compensable injury: Cullen v Trapell. 2. Subject to limited exceptions, the Gourley principle applies where the lost income would have been taxable if received by the plaintiff and the damages award is not assessable income in the hands of the plaintiff: Groves v United Pacific Transport , per Gibbs J; Atlas Tiles , per Gibbs J. An example of an exceptional case (in the context of a wrongful dismissal claim) is Atlas Tiles, where a small portion of the damages award was taxable . 3. Subject to any relevant statute, an award of damages in a personal injuries claim, even if calculated by reference to lost income, is not income according to ordinary concepts for the purposes of s 6-5 of the ITAA : Cullen v Trapell (endorsing the judgment of Gibbs J in Atlas Tiles ); Groves v United Pacific Transport. The reason is that the award of damages is, in point of principle, for impairment of the plaintiff's earning capacity and not for loss of income as such: Graham v Baker. 4. This proposition applies even if the award is limited to damages in respect of lost income (in the sense explained in the previous paragraph) during a period prior to trial: Graham v Baker ; Groves v United Public Transport. 5. It follows that there is a clear distinction between the character of a payment for the purposes of s 6-5 of the ITAA and the manner of its calculation or quantification: Tinkler v FCT. Indeed, the latter might provide a quite misleading guide to the former: Tinkler v FCT. 6. The Gourley principle applies in Australia to an award of damages for wrongful dismissal, notwithstanding that the calculation of damages is based on the precise amount of income lost by the plaintiff in consequence of the wrongful termination of his or her employment: Atlas Tiles, per Gibbs J, approved in Cullen v Trapell. A damages award in such a case is not income according to ordinary concepts. 7. A damages award for defamation of a trading corporation is intended to compensate for the injury sustained by the corporation to its reputation in the way of business: Gacic v John Fairfax ; ABC v Comalco. The assessment of damages is ' at large ', but may be undertaken in a particular case by reference to the loss of income attributable to the defamatory publication: Barnes &amp; Co v Sharpe . 8. Where damages for defamation are awarded to a trading corporation and are assessed by reference to the plaintiff's loss of income, the Gourley principle applies to the assessment: Rubber Improvement ; Atlas Tiles, per Gibbs J, approved in Cullen v Trappell. 9. As has been noted, subject to limited exceptions, Gourley applies only where the income that would have been derived by the plaintiff would have been taxable and the damages award is not subject to tax. It follows that a damages award in favour of a trading corporation for injury to its reputation in the way of business, assessed in the manner described, is not income according to ordinary concepts when received by the plaintiff corporation. The reason why this is so is that damages for defamation of a trading corporation are awarded for loss of business reputation, however they may be calculated: see authorities cited in para 7 above. Thus even if the award is assessed exclusively by reference to loss of income, the award does not constitute income in the hands of the plaintiff corporation. In this respect the award is conceptually similar to damages awarded for loss of earning capacity.