SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Bobanovic v Incandela |
Citation: | [2015] ACTCA 63 |
Hearing Date(s): | 12 February 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 18 December 2015 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Burns and Katzmann JJ |
Decision: | The appeal is dismissed with costs. The cross-appeal is dismissed with costs. |
Category: | Principal Judgment |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – Appeal Against Liability – whether the primary judge erred in finding a fortuitous accident occurred as alleged – whether the primary judge failed to take into account the plaintiff’s credit – whether the primary judge failed to consider circumstances surrounding the plaintiff’s report of the accident to police – whether the primary judge failed to take into account the plaintiff’s criminal history – whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the collision and the plaintiff’s injuries APPEAL – Cross-appeal Against Damages – whether the sums awarded for general damages, future economic loss and future earning capacity were inadequate TORTS – Negligence – road accident cases DAMAGES – Measure and Remoteness of Damages in Actions for Tort |
Cases Cited: | Australian Capital Territory v Crowley (2012) 273 FLR 370 Calder v Boyne Smelters Ltd [1991] 1 Qd R 325 |
Parties: | Bozo Bobanovic (Appellant) Peter Incandela (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr G Watson SC with Ms V Heath (Appellant) Mr D Campbell SC with Mr I Bradfield (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Moray & Agnew (Appellant) Porters Lawyers (Respondent) | |
File Number(s): | ACTCA 83 of 2013 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACT Supreme Court Before: Higgins CJ Date of Decision: 21 October 2013 Case Title: Incandela v Bobanovic Citation: [2013] ACTSC 213 Court File Number(s): SC 362 of 2007 |
MURRELL CJ AND BURNS J:
Procedural history
In the proceedings below, Peter Incandela, who for convenience we will refer to as the plaintiff, claimed damages for personal injury arising out of a motor vehicle collision said to have occurred at about 2 pm on 2 March 2006. The defendant was the registered owner of the other vehicle said to have been involved in the collision, although that vehicle was said to have been stolen, and was being driven at the time of the collision, by an unknown person.
The plaintiff asserted that he was driving a Daihatsu Terios motor vehicle in a southerly direction on the Barton Highway near Hall in the ACT. He turned right at the intersection with Wallaroo Road. As he was turning, another vehicle, being a Ford Falcon registered in the name of the defendant, was travelling in a northerly direction on the Barton Highway and turning left into Wallaroo Road. The defendant’s Ford Falcon vehicle…
Continue reading Bobanovic v Incandela
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bobanovic v Incandela [2015] ACTCA 63
- Case
- [2015] ACTCA 63
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in finding that a fortuitous accident occurred as alleged by the plaintiff, and whether the primary judge had failed to adequately consider the plaintiff's credit, the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff's report of the accident to the police, and the plaintiff's criminal history. Furthermore, the court was asked to determine if there was sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the collision and the plaintiff's injuries. In relation to the cross-appeal, the issues revolved around whether the sums awarded for general damages, future economic loss, and future earning capacity were inadequate.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal. The reasoning of the court, while not detailed in the provided text, would have involved a review of the evidence presented at trial and the application of established principles of negligence and damages in tort law. The dismissal of the appeal suggests the court found no error in the primary judge's findings regarding liability and causation, and that the plaintiff's credit and other factors were properly considered. Similarly, the dismissal of the cross-appeal indicates the court found no error in the quantum of damages awarded.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs, and the cross-appeal was also dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
The cross-appeal is dismissed with costs.
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.