Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Dal v Chol [2018] NSWCA 219 Hearing dates: 21 August 2018 Decision date: 02 October 2018 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
White JA at [2];
Sackville AJA at [38]Decision: (1) Appeal allowed in part.
(2) Set aside the judgment for $165,283.40 entered on 30 October 2017.
(3) In lieu thereof enter judgment for the respondent in the sum of $159,924.40.
(4) Give liberty to the respondent to apply by notice of motion within 14 days to vary order (3) if he wishes to contend that the award for past economic loss referable to a period of 144 weeks, rather than 121 weeks, was appropriate.
(5) The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.Catchwords: NEGLIGENCE – damages – respondent sued appellant for personal injuries sustained in motor vehicle accident – whether primary judge misapprehended circumstances of accident – whether primary judge’s alleged misapprehension led to erroneous findings as to respondent’s injuries – whether primary judge erred in assessment of damages Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 126, Pt 3.4
Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) , r 42.1Cases Cited: Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Cervantes [2012] NSWCA 244
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr (2012) 83 NSWLR 302; [2012] NSWCA 13
Baird v Roberts [1977] 2 NSWLR 389
Kessey v Golledge [1999] NSWCA 424
Linsell v Robson [1976] 1 NSWLR 249
Majkic v Bonnano [2008] NSWCA 253
Manly Municipal Council v Skene [2002] NSWCA 385
Mead v Kerney [2012] NSWCA 215
Nominal Defendant v Livaja [2011] NSWCA 121
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164; [1965] HCA 34
Rabay v Bristow [2005] NSWCA 199
Saville v Health Care Complaints Commission [2006] NSWCA 298
Seltsam Pty Ltd v Ghaleb [2005] NSWCA 208; (2005) 3 DDCR 1
Smith v Alone [2017] NSWCA 287
South Western Sydney Local Health District v Sorbello [2017] NSWCA 201
State of New South Wales v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536; [2000] NSWCA 133
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158; [1960] HCA 58
Yammine v Kalwy [1979] 2 NSWLR 151Category: Principal judgment Parties: Michael Dal (Appellant)
Chol Chol (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr K Rewell SC (Appellant)
Mr L King SC / Mr L Morgan (Respondent)
Hall & Wilcox (Appellant)
Turner Freeman Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/350574 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Date of Decision:
- 27 October 2017
- Before:
- Cowdroy ADCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2017/158990
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
The appellant, Mr Michael Dal, appealed as of right against a judgment of Cowdroy ADCJ of the District Court in favour of the respondent, Mr Chol Chol, in the sum of $165,283.40. The respondent had sued the appellant for personal injuries that the respondent had sustained in a motor vehicle accident (“the Accident”) which occurred…
Continue reading Dal v Chol
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Dal v Chol [2018] NSWCA 219
- Case
- [2018] NSWCA 219
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had misapprehended the circumstances of the accident, and if so, whether this misapprehension had led to erroneous findings regarding the nature and extent of Mr. Chol's injuries and the subsequent assessment of damages.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had indeed misapprehended certain aspects of the accident, specifically concerning the speed of the vehicles. This misapprehension, the Court held, had a material impact on the assessment of damages, particularly in relation to past economic loss. While the appeal was allowed in part, the Court did not entirely set aside the judgment. Instead, it varied the quantum of damages awarded.
The Court of Appeal set aside the original judgment of $165,283.40 and entered a new judgment for the respondent in the sum of $159,924.40. Liberty was granted to the respondent to apply within 14 days to vary this new judgment if he wished to argue that the award for past economic loss should have been calculated over 144 weeks instead of 121 weeks. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal allowed in part.
(2) Set aside the judgment for $165,283.40 entered on 30 October 2017.
(3) In lieu thereof enter judgment for the respondent in the sum of $159,924.40.
(4) Give liberty to the respondent to apply by notice of motion within 14 days to vary order (3) if he wishes to contend that the award for past economic loss referable to a period of 144 weeks, rather than 121 weeks, was appropriate.
(5) The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
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.