What Are Special Damages and How Are They Proved?

General damages are estimated; special damages are counted. That difference in kind explains the different rules of proof, and the number of claimants who have lost this head for want of a receipt.

What falls under special damages

• Medical and hospital expenses past and future, including medication and follow-up visits. In Koieba v MVIT [1984] PGLawRp 459; [1984] PNGLR 365 the court itemised hospitalisation and airfares agreed at K14,770.44, analgesics at K100, clinic visits at K30, and K900 for future medication.
• Prostheses and equipment. Stamp v MVIT [1979] PGNC 2; N179 included K5,000 for the replacement and adjustment of an artificial leg in Melbourne; Kerr v MVIT [1979] PGLawRp 676; [1979] PNGLR 251 allowed K12,000 for “special paraplegic equipment”; Yakupi v MVIL [2006] PGNC 214; N2981 assessed K30,000 for a special house, K24,000 for future medical expenses and K24,000 for nursing.
• Travel to and from treatment, and the cost of a companion where medically necessary. Airfares to attend court, however, are costs of the action, not special damages: Takura v MVIL [2010] PGNC 113; N4105.
• Lost wages to the date of trial are sometimes pleaded as special damages, as in the two-part method for dependency claims in Paula v MVIT [1992] PGNC 4; N1032, though most judgments treat them as past economic loss.
• Funeral and medical expenses in a death claim, under section 28(2) of the Wrongs Act, including the cost of a headstone.
• Reports. The fee for a medical report and an X-ray: Sangasib v MVIT [1991] PGNC 77; [1991] PNGLR 449 allowed K50 and K3.

Pleaded and strictly proved

Order 8 rules 34 and 35 of the National Court Rules require a party claiming out-of-pocket expenses to give particulars in the pleading. In Pelen v MVIL [2026] PGNC 249; N11980 special damages of K1,275 were pleaded but “not proved by sufficient documentary evidence and were therefore dismissed”; the court cited the rules and refused the head even though liability had been established by default judgment. In Saka v MVIL [2025] PGNC 486; N11642 a claim for K250 for “photocopies and stationery” was rejected. In Post & Telecommunication v MVIT [2003] PGNC 30; N2479 an employer seeking to recover K12,665 paid to its injured worker had to “strictly prove” the amount before invoking the Workers’ Compensation Act indemnity.

The rule is not applied without mercy. In Tuman v MVIL [2017] PGNC 375; N6923 the court acknowledged that “special damages must be pleaded and strictly proven” but, following earlier authority, awarded K1,050 “despite the lack of receipts” because the amounts were reasonable. In Gamias v Anton and MVIT [1996] PGNC 60; N1502 K200 was allowed where K306 was claimed without conclusive proof. In Manduru v MVIL [2016] PGNC 308; N6509 K10,000 was awarded from a claim of K41,231 “taking into account the deficiencies in the evidence”. The safe course is obvious: keep every receipt from the day of the accident.

Treatment overseas and free treatment

Where the injury requires treatment not available in Papua New Guinea, the reasonable cost of obtaining it abroad is recoverable. Vevehupa v MVIT [1983] PGLawRp 517; [1983] PNGLR 343 concerned a man whose feet were crushed and both lower limbs amputated, treated in Australia. The court held that where services are provided at full cost the defendant pays the full reasonable cost, and that where they are provided free the defendant is still liable for “the proper and reasonable cost of supplying those needs”, applying Griffiths v Kerkemeyer. The Supreme Court upheld the award in MVIT v Vevehupa [1984] PGLawRp 446; [1984] PNGLR 224, holding that the Repatriation Commission’s certified charges were proof of the facts stated. The award may be made in the currency in which the loss was felt, and the court may direct payment to the body that provided the treatment.

Care by relatives

The Griffiths v Kerkemeyer principle also allows a sum for the value of nursing and domestic services provided gratuitously by family. Brown v MVIT [1980] PGLawRp 610; [1980] PNGLR 409 allowed K100 for such services; Yakupi’s K24,000 for nursing reflects the same idea on a larger scale. In a country where the seriously injured are cared for at home by relatives, this head is under-claimed; evidence of who provides the care, for how many hours, and what a paid carer would cost is what the court needs.

Customary expenses

The courts have accepted that obligations arising by custom can form part of a claim. In Dingi v MVIT [1994] PGLawRp 630; [1994] PNGLR 385 the court held that “obligations that arise by custom following a death can be part of any claim”. Conversely, customary compensation received from the other side is deducted. Feast and funeral costs in a death claim are recoverable as funeral expenses if pleaded and proved; in MVIL v Kiangua [2015] PGSC 70; SC1476 K1,500 for funeral expenses was struck out on appeal because it had not been pleaded.

Interest on special damages

Because special damages were spent before judgment, interest runs on them from the date of the accident, or from the date each sum was spent, to judgment. The rate has generally been half the rate applied to pre-judgment general damages: 4 per cent on specials against 8 per cent in Brown, Darvill and Kumbe. See interest.