Armin Damirdjian v Nominal Defendant and Zaya

In the matter of Armin Damirdjian, the plaintiff, against the Nominal Defendant and Zaya, the defendants, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with resolving a dispute arising from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff sought damages from the Nominal Defendant, an unidentified party who was potentially responsible for the accident. The second defendant, Zaya, was alleged to have been the driver of the vehicle that caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The primary legal issues before the court involved determining whether the plaintiff had made due inquiry and conducted a sufficient search to identify the Nominal Defendant, establishing ownership of the vehicle in question, assessing the negligence of the driver, and examining the plaintiff's contributory negligence. Additionally, the court needed to assess the plaintiff’s claimed heads of damage.

The court examined the plaintiff's efforts to identify the Nominal Defendant and found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the plaintiff had conducted a thorough inquiry. The court also considered the plaintiff's claims regarding the ownership of the vehicle and determined that there was no conclusive evidence linking the Nominal Defendant to the vehicle involved in the accident. Regarding the negligence of the driver, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not proven that the driver was negligent under the circumstances. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, which impacted the assessment of damages. Based on these findings, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff against the second defendant but not against the Nominal Defendant. The court refused the application for interest on damages at that stage and indicated that it would hear from the parties on the appropriate order for costs.

In summary, the court rendered a verdict and judgment in favor of the first defendant and against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was awarded a judgment against the second defendant in the amount of $375,000. The application for interest on damages was refused, and the court reserved the decision on costs. The exhibits were to be returned, and the parties were granted liberty to apply for further orders if needed.