Dal v Chol

Case [2018] NSWCA 219


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 42.1
Cases 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 151
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Michael Dal (Appellant)
Chol Chol (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr K Rewell SC (Appellant)
Mr L King SC / Mr L Morgan (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
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

Details
AGLC
Dal v Chol [2018] NSWCA 219
Case
[2018] NSWCA 219
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a claim for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. The respondent, Mr. Chol, had sued the appellant, Mr. Dal, in negligence. The primary judge found in favour of Mr. Chol and awarded damages. Mr. Dal appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

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.