Charles v Noureddine - [2024] VSC 752

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2023 03623

BETWEEN:

ANGELA CHARLES	Appellant
v
MOHAMED NOUREDDINE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Daly AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 July 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 December 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Charles v Noureddine
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 752

---

CIVIL LAW — Negligence — Claim for damages for unregistered vehicle — Defendant admitted liability for motor vehicle collision — Whether plaintiff had standing to bring claim.

EVIDENCE — Proof of ownership of unregistered vehicle — Sole possession of keys, application for an unregistered vehicle permit, and absence of competing claims as circumstantial evidence of ownership — Alleged conflict in oral testimony between plaintiff and his brother regarding mode of acquisition of the vehicle — Lack of contemporaneous documentation — Magistrate entitled to accept oral evidence over absence of formal documentation — Role of possession and lack of competing claims in establishing ownership — Hocking v National Archives (2020) 271 CLR 1 and Simonson Properties Pty Ltd v Hardy [2014] NSWSC 229, referred to — Whether there was no evidence to support claim for ownership — Whether the magistrate misapprehended the evidence — Open to the magistrate to reach a conclusion that the plaintiff owned the vehicle — No error of law established.

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS — Appeal under s 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic) — Adequacy of reasons — Whether the magistrate provided sufficient explanation for findings on ownership of unregistered vehicle — Alleged failure to reconcile conflicting oral testimony and absence of corroborative witnesses — Hunter v Transport Accident Commission (2005) 43 MVR 130 and Dimatos v Coombe [2011] VSC 619 referred to — Reasons adequate.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr S J Ryan of counsel	William Roberts Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr W Newland of counsel	John Curtain & Associates Pty Ltd Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

On 9 January 2021, a vehicle driven by the appellant, Ms Angela Charles, collided with another motor vehicle in Geelong. The respondent, Mr Mohamed Noureddine, claimed to be the owner of the other motor vehicle, a 1988 Porsche 911 sports car (‘vehicle’).[1] Mr Noureddine was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the collision. The vehicle was unregistered, and had not been registered since it was acquired by Mr Noureddine’s late father at least two decades ago.
[1]While estimates of the vehicle’s pre-collision value differed, those estimates ranged between $140,000 and $170,000.

On 19 April 2022, Mr Noureddine commenced a proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court claiming that he was the owner of the vehicle (‘Magistrates’ Court proceeding’). In Mr Noureddine’s statement of claim (‘complaint’), he sought that Ms Charles pay the replacement value of the vehicle, being $98,000[2] plus an assessment fee of $440, plus legal costs and interest pursuant to statute.
[2]Net of the proceeds of the sale of the vehicle.

On 13 May 2022,…

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 Charles v Noureddine

Details

AGLC: Charles v Noureddine [2024] VSC 752
Case: [2024] VSC 752
Decision Date: 5 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Charles v Noureddine involved a claim for damages following a motor vehicle collision where the defendant admitted liability. The central dispute was whether the plaintiff, Charles, had standing to bring the claim for damages, specifically regarding his ownership of the unregistered vehicle involved in the accident. The matter was heard and determined by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff could be considered the owner of the unregistered vehicle, given the absence of formal documentation evidencing ownership. The court had to consider the plaintiff's possession of the vehicle keys, his application for an unregistered vehicle permit, and the lack of competing claims to ownership as circumstantial evidence. Additionally, the court examined the credibility of the plaintiff’s oral testimony regarding the acquisition of the vehicle, which was contested by his brother's differing account. The magistrate's decision to accept the plaintiff’s oral testimony over the absence of formal documentation was also a critical point of legal scrutiny.

The court concluded that the magistrate was entitled to rely on the plaintiff’s sole possession of the vehicle keys, the application for an unregistered vehicle permit, and the lack of competing claims to establish ownership. The court found that the magistrate was not required to accept the plaintiff's brother's testimony as it was not supported by any contemporaneous documentation, and it was open to the magistrate to find that the plaintiff was the owner of the vehicle. The court held that the magistrate’s reasons were adequate and that there was no misapprehension of the evidence. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the magistrate's findings on ownership and the plaintiff’s standing to bring the claim for damages.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal brought under section 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic), with the court affirming that the plaintiff, Charles, had standing to bring the claim for damages for the unregistered vehicle collision.

Orders