Bugeja v Hatgiantounio - [2002] NSWCA 132

CITATION: Bugeja v Hatgiantounio; Bugeja v Personace [2002] NSWCA 132

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40717/01; 40718/01

HEARING DATE(S): 3 May 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 May 2002

PARTIES :

Charles Bugeja (Appellant)
Angelo Hatgiantounio (Respondent)
Anthony Personace (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1, 22; Heydon JA at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : DC 10145/00
DC 7055/00

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Gamble ADCJ

COUNSEL: Mr C R R Hoeben SC (Appellant)
Mr D J Russell (Hatgiantounio)
Mr R W C Royle (Personace)

SOLICITORS: McLaughlin & Riordan (Appellant)
W R Harvey & Associates (Hatgiantounio)
Stewart Cuddy & Mockler (Personace)

CATCHWORDS: Tort - negligence - Motor Accidents Act 1988 - liability admitted - appeal as to quantum of damages - miscalculation of damages by trial judge - Courts - inferior courts - District Court - appeal - inadequate reasons of trial judge - unfamiliarity with relevant law - injustice resulting - grounds for retrial - ND

DECISION: See paragraph 21

CA 40717/01
CA 40718/01
DC 10145/00
DC 7055/00

HANDLEY JA
HEYDON JA
3 May 2002

CHARLES ANTHONY BUGEJA v ANGELO HATGIANTOUNIO

CHARLES ANTHONY BUGEJA v ANTHONY PERSONACE

JUDGMENT

1 HANDLEY JA: The Court has decided that it should order a new trial in these actions against both defendants and on all issues. I will ask Heydon JA to give the first judgment.

2 HEYDON JA: This is an appeal by the plaintiff against orders made by Gamble ADCJ on 22 August 2001 after a hearing on 24 to 26 July 2001. She ordered a verdict in the plaintiff’s favour of $118,000, of which the first defendant was to pay $39,300 and the second defendant was to pay $78,700. She ordered the first defendant to pay 33 per cent of the plaintiff’s costs and the second defendant to pay 67 per cent of the plaintiff’s costs.

3 This appeal is on quantum only, liability having been admitted at the trial by both defendants.

4 The trial judge had to deal with the effects on the plaintiff of two motor accidents, one on 14 June 1996 and one on 13 May 1998. The first defendant was negligent in relation to the first and the second defendant in relation to the second. She held that the injuries received in the 14 June 1996 accident did not cause “significant impairment within the meaning of s 79A(4)” of the Motor Accidents Act 1988. She said that the first defendant contributed “five per cent of the most extreme case”. She said that the injuries in the 13 May 1998 accident did not cause significant impairment either. She said that the second defendant contributed “10 per cent of the most extreme case”. Accordingly, she made no award for non economic loss for either accident.

5 She appeared to accept what she described as “medical opinion” that the plaintiff’s health would improve and said her award of damages reflected that opinion.

6 It is not necessary to go to the details of the ingredients…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bugeja v Hatgiantounio

Details

AGLC: Bugeja v Hatgiantounio [2002] NSWCA 132
Case: [2002] NSWCA 132
Decision Date: 3 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal from a decision of the District Court of New South Wales regarding the quantum of damages awarded in a motor accident claim. The appellant, Mr Bugeja, was the plaintiff in the original proceedings, and the respondent, Mr Hatgiantounio, was the defendant. Liability for the accident had been admitted by the defendant, meaning the appeal focused solely on the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had miscalculated the damages awarded to the plaintiff and whether the reasons provided by the trial judge were inadequate, leading to a potential injustice. The court was required to consider if the trial judge's unfamiliarity with the relevant law constituted a sufficient ground for ordering a retrial.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had indeed made a miscalculation in assessing the damages. This miscalculation, coupled with the inadequacy of the reasons provided, which suggested an unfamiliarity with the applicable legal principles, resulted in an injustice to the plaintiff. Consequently, the court determined that the interests of justice required a retrial of the quantum of damages.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the appeal be allowed, the judgment of the District Court be set aside, and that there be a new trial on the issue of the quantum of damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 21

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.

CITATION:	Bugeja v Hatgiantounio; Bugeja v Personace [2002] NSWCA 132
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40717/01; 40718/01
HEARING DATE(S):	3 May 2002
JUDGMENT DATE:	3 May 2002
PARTIES :	Charles Bugeja (Appellant) Angelo Hatgiantounio (Respondent) Anthony Personace (Respondent)
JUDGMENT OF:	Handley JA at 1, 22; Heydon JA at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	DC 10145/00 DC 7055/00
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Gamble ADCJ

COUNSEL:	Mr C R R Hoeben SC (Appellant) Mr D J Russell (Hatgiantounio) Mr R W C Royle (Personace)
SOLICITORS:	McLaughlin & Riordan (Appellant) W R Harvey & Associates (Hatgiantounio) Stewart Cuddy & Mockler (Personace)
CATCHWORDS:	Tort - negligence - Motor Accidents Act 1988 - liability admitted - appeal as to quantum of damages - miscalculation of damages by trial judge - Courts - inferior courts - District Court - appeal - inadequate reasons of trial judge - unfamiliarity with relevant law - injustice resulting - grounds for retrial - ND
DECISION:	See paragraph 21