Cameron v Catic - [2019] NSWDC 434

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Cameron v Catic [2019] NSWDC 434
Hearing dates: 1 & 2 May 2019; 1, 2 & 4 July 2019
Date of orders: 23 August 2019
Decision date: 23 August 2019
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Strathdee, DCJ
Decision:
(1)   Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $42,505.40.
(2)   I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs as agreed or assessed.
(3)   I grant liberty to the parties to approach my associate within 21 days of this date if any alternate costs order is sought.

Catchwords: TRAFFIC LAW AND TRANSPORT – motor accident legislation – liability – plaintiff injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident
TORT – damages – economic loss – out-of-pocket expenses – gratuitous care – pre-existing conditions – Motor Accidents Compensation Act
Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008
Cases Cited: Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Fardous [2015] NSWCA 82
Graham v Baker [1961] HCA 48; (1961) 106 CLR 340
Husher v Husher [1999] HCA 47; (1999) 197 CLR 138
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission [1995] HCA 5; (1995) 182 CLR 1
Morvatjou v Moradkhani [2013] NSWCA 157
Motor Accidents Authority of NSW v Mills (2010) 78 NSWLR 125
Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; 114 CLR 164
Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (1992) 108 ALR 55
Vosebe Pty Ltd v Bakavgas; Vosebe Pty Ltd v Vapore [2009] NSWCA 117
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rita Sunita Cameron (Plaintiff)
Thiomir Catic (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr A Campbell (Plaintiff)
Mr R O’Keefe (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Christie Law (Plaintiff)
Vardanega Roberts (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2016/157996
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

The Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 10 July 2013. Liability is not in issue and the matter proceeded before me as an assessment of damages only.
The plaintiff seeks past out-of-pocket expenses, past and future economic loss, and past and future personal care and assistance. I note that the plaintiff is not entitled to damages for non-economic loss pursuant to s 131 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (‘MACA’)

BACKGROUND

The plaintiff was born in Suva, Fiji on 26 January 1957 and attended high school in Fiji to Year 11. After leaving school she obtained part-time work in a phone call centre, and then in a fabric store in Suva. In 1981 the plaintiff moved to Australia at the age of 23 and lived with her sister in Marayong.
She obtained employment in Australia initially as a machinist in a sewing factory and then in a fruit emporium. Between 1982 and 1987 she was employed by the Royal Ryde Linen Service as a leading hand/process worker. Between 1987 and 1988 she was employed as a service manager/supervisor with Woolworths Pty Ltd and then from 1988 to 1991 as a machine operator for Addis Pty Ltd doing factory work. Concurrently, she worked for Grace Bros as a…

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 Cameron v Catic

Details

AGLC: Cameron v Catic [2019] NSWDC 434
Case: [2019] NSWDC 434
Decision Date: 23 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Cameron, brought an action against the defendant, Catic, in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria seeking damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's negligent driving caused the accident, which resulted in economic loss and out-of-pocket expenses. The defendant denied liability and argued that the plaintiff's pre-existing medical conditions contributed to his injuries, thereby reducing the amount of damages payable.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries and, if so, the extent of the damages payable. The court had to consider the Motor Accidents Compensation Act and decide whether the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions were a contributing factor to his injuries. The court also had to assess the plaintiff's economic loss and determine whether the gratuitous care provided by his family members was compensable.

The court found that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries and that his pre-existing conditions did not absolve the defendant of liability. The court held that the plaintiff's economic loss was reasonably foreseeable and directly caused by the defendant's negligent driving. The court also held that the gratuitous care provided by the plaintiff's family members was compensable and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed. The court granted liberty to the parties to approach the associate within 21 days of the date of the judgment if any alternate costs order was sought.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $42,505.40.

(2) I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs as agreed or assessed.

(3) I grant liberty to the parties to approach my associate within 21 days of this date if any alternate costs order is sought.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Cameron v Catic [2019] NSWDC 434
Hearing dates:	1 & 2 May 2019; 1, 2 & 4 July 2019
Date of orders:	23 August 2019
Decision date:	23 August 2019
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Strathdee, DCJ
Decision:	(1) Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $42,505.40. (2) I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs as agreed or assessed. (3) I grant liberty to the parties to approach my associate within 21 days of this date if any alternate costs order is sought.
Catchwords:	TRAFFIC LAW AND TRANSPORT – motor accident legislation – liability – plaintiff injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident TORT – damages – economic loss – out-of-pocket expenses – gratuitous care – pre-existing conditions – Motor Accidents Compensation Act
Legislation Cited:	Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008
Cases Cited:	Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Fardous [2015] NSWCA 82 Graham v Baker [1961] HCA 48; (1961) 106 CLR 340 Husher v Husher [1999] HCA 47; (1999) 197 CLR 138 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission [1995] HCA 5; (1995) 182 CLR 1 Morvatjou v Moradkhani [2013] NSWCA 157 Motor Accidents Authority of NSW v Mills (2010) 78 NSWLR 125 Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; 114 CLR 164 Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (1992) 108 ALR 55 Vosebe Pty Ltd v Bakavgas; Vosebe Pty Ltd v Vapore [2009] NSWCA 117
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Rita Sunita Cameron (Plaintiff) Thiomir Catic (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr A Campbell (Plaintiff) Mr R O’Keefe (Defendant) Solicitors: Christie Law (Plaintiff) Vardanega Roberts (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2016/157996
Publication restriction:	None