Berry v Al Jabour

Case [2019] NSWDC 959


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Berry v Al Jabour [2019] NSWDC 959
Hearing dates: 30 September 2019
Date of orders: 30 September 2019
Decision date: 30 September 2019
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:

(1)   Make order 1 in the notice of motion filed 17 May 2019 joining AAMI as a party.

(2)   Costs be costs in the cause.

(3)   AAMI be directed to file and serve within 28 days an affidavit explaining the entitlement of AAMI to act as indicated in the last three paragraphs on page 1 of the letter of Moray & Agnew to Mrs Nima Al Jabour dated 13 August 2019.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE — parties — joinder – joinder of insurer – claim allegedly not made in good faith – dispute as to whether plaintiff in car – car driven by wife

Legislation Cited:

CivilProcedure Act 2005, s 56

MotorAccidents Compensation Act 1999, s 119

Cases Cited:

Hamad Abu-Ahmed v Wally El Riche (District Court (NSW), Norton SC DCJ, 4 February 2019, unrep)

Ishak v Taoube [2019] NSWDC 46

Virski v Virski (Supreme Court (NSW), 20 March 1998, unrep)

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Alex Berry (plaintiff/second respondent on notice of motion)
Nima Al Jabour (defendant/first respondent on notice of motion)
AAI Limited trading as AAMI (applicant on notice of motion)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr G Schipp (plaintiff/second respondent on notice of motion)
Mr M A Cleary (applicant on notice of motion)

Solicitors:
Prominent Lawyers (plaintiff/second respondent on notice of motion)
Moray & Agnew Lawyers (applicant on notice of motion)
File Number(s): 2019/59261
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

  1. The Compulsory Third Party Insurer, AAMI, seeks to be joined as a party to this litigation. Alex Berry, also known as Mohammed Al Jabour and Khalil Alnajjar, who is the plaintiff, claims to have been injured when a car driven by his wife, Nima Al Jabour, the defendant, collided with the rear of a vehicle driven by Chak Kwan Ying

  2. Mr Berry and Ms Al Jabour assert in a statement to AAMI that Mr Berry was in the front passenger seat at the time of the collision. Mr Berry sought medical treatment the day after the collision, and a police record made some months after the accident indicates that he was injured in the collision.

  3. On the other hand, Mr Ying says that Ms Al Jabour and a young child sitting in the rear restraint seat were the only passengers in Ms Al Jabour’s vehicle, and that there was no one in the front passenger seat at the time of the collision.

  4. AAMI asserts that the claim is not made in good faith in that Mr Berry was not in the vehicle at the time of the collision.

  5. Section 119 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 allows joinder of the insurer. It provides:

“119Joinder of insurer where false claim alleged

(1)  If:

(a)  court proceedings have been commenced against a person in respect of a claim, and

(b)…

Continue reading Berry v Al Jabour

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Berry v Al Jabour [2019] NSWDC 959
Case
[2019] NSWDC 959
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Berry v Al Jabour involved a dispute between the parties regarding the joinder of an insurer and the validity of a claim made in good faith. The plaintiff, Berry, sought to join AAMI, the defendant's insurer, as a party to the proceedings. The defendant contested the joinder, arguing that the claim was not made in good faith. Additionally, there was a dispute about whether the plaintiff was in the car at the time of the accident, with the defendant asserting that the car was driven by the plaintiff's wife.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether AAMI should be joined as a party to the proceedings. The court needed to determine if the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's insurer was made in good faith, as required by law. The court also had to consider the dispute regarding the identity of the person in the car at the time of the accident, which was relevant to the validity of the claim against the insurer.

The court ruled that AAMI should be joined as a party to the proceedings. The court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the claim was made in good faith. The court also noted that the dispute about the identity of the person in the car at the time of the accident did not affect the validity of the claim against the insurer. The court ordered that AAMI be joined as a party and directed AAMI to file and serve an affidavit explaining its entitlement to act as indicated in a letter sent to the defendant's wife.

The court also ordered that costs be costs in the cause and that AAMI be directed to file and serve within 28 days an affidavit explaining the entitlement of AAMI to act as indicated in the last three paragraphs on page 1 of the letter of Moray & Agnew to Mrs Nima Al Jabour dated 13 August 2019.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Make order 1 in the notice of motion filed 17 May 2019 joining AAMI as a party.

(2) Costs be costs in the cause.

(3) AAMI be directed to file and serve within 28 days an affidavit explaining the entitlement of AAMI to act as indicated in the last three paragraphs on page 1 of the letter of Moray & Agnew to Mrs Nima Al Jabour dated 13 August 2019.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.