Legal Research
Cases
Dharamdas v Boateng

Dharamdas v Boateng

Case [2017] NSWDC 441 31 August 2018

Negligence

Contributory Negligence

Compensatory Damages

Costs

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Dharamdas v Boateng [2017] NSWDC 441
Hearing dates: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 October 2017
Date of orders: 31 August 2018
Decision date: 31 August 2018
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Judge Levy SC
Decision:
1. The plaintiff’s damages are assessed in the amount of $487,512.70;

2. After apportionment by 40 per cent on account of the plaintiff’s own contributory negligence, judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $292,507.62;

3. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis unless a party is able to identify the basis for a different cost order;

4. The exhibits may be returned;
5. Liberty to apply on 7 days’ notice if further or other orders are required.
Catchwords: TORTS – negligence – motor vehicle accident – pedestrian struck by taxi whilst crossing roadway – negligence and contributory negligence already determined; DAMAGES – assessment of claimed heads of damage
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5D
Evidence Act 1995, s 136
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, s 126, s 136, s 141B
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 31.27(1)(c), Sch 7 cl 5(1)(c)
Workers’ Compensation Act 1987, s 151L
Cases Cited: Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr [2012] NSWCA 13
Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v Cosmidis; Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v DM & BP Wiskich Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 443
Brown v Lewis [2006] NSWCA 87
Coote v Kelly [2013] NSWCA 357
Cupac v Cannone [2015] NSWCA 114
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118
Fox v Wood [1981] HCA 41; (1981) 148 CLR 438
Glen v Sullivan [2015] NSWCA 191
Larson v Commissioner of Police [2004] NSWCA 126
Majkic v Bonnano [2008] NSWCA 253
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 20; (1990) 169 CLR 638
Manly Municipal Council v Skene [2002] NSWCA 385
Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227
Mt Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey [1970] HCA 60; (1970) 125 CLR 383
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
Pham v Shui [2006] NSWCA 373
Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; (1965) 114 CLR 164
Redbro Investments Pty Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 73
Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWCA 117
State of NSW v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133, (2000) 54 NSWLR 536
Strinic v Singh [2009] NSWCA 15
Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5, (2012) 246 CLR 182
Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57
Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; (1960) 108 CLR 158
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Martin Gabriel Dharamdas (Plaintiff)
Kofi Boateng (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Morgan (Plaintiff)
Mr J Guihot (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Turner Freeman (Plaintiff)
Moray & Agnew (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2012/332645
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Table of Contents

Nature of case and factual background

[1] – [3]

Issues

[4] – [6]

Evidence overview

[7] – [12]

Credibility and reliability of testimony

[13] – [32]

Plaintiff

[25] – [26]

Plaintiff’s…

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 Dharamdas v Boateng

Details

AGLC: Dharamdas v Boateng [2017] NSWDC 441
Case: [2017] NSWDC 441
Decision Date: 31 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Dharamdas, sought damages from the defendant, Boateng, following an incident where he was struck by a taxi while crossing a roadway. The taxi was driven by Boateng. The case reached the court to determine the quantum of damages the plaintiff was entitled to recover, having already established that both parties were negligent, with the plaintiff found to be 40% contributory. The court was tasked with assessing the various heads of claimed damages, including special damages, general damages for pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. The plaintiff argued for a comprehensive sum to cover all aspects of his loss and suffering, while the defendant contested the extent of these claims.

In examining the evidence presented, the court considered the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, the impact on his daily life, and the financial implications of these injuries. The court also assessed the plaintiff's pre-existing health conditions and their exacerbation by the accident. After carefully evaluating the submissions and evidence, the court determined that the plaintiff's total damages amounted to $487,512.70. This sum was then reduced by 40% due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence, resulting in a final judgment of $292,507.62 in favour of the plaintiff.

The court ruled that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis unless a party could demonstrate a basis for a different cost order. The exhibits were to be returned, and the parties were granted liberty to apply for further or other orders within seven days' notice. This decision provides clarity on the extent of the plaintiff's entitlements and the financial responsibility of the defendant following the accident.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiff’s damages are assessed in the amount of $487,512.70;

2. After apportionment by 40 per cent on account of the plaintiff’s own contributory negligence, judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $292,507.62;

3. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis unless a party is able to identify the basis for a different cost order;

4. The exhibits may be returned;

5. Liberty to apply on 7 days’ notice if further or other orders are required.

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.

Actions

Citations

Dharamdas v Boateng [2017] NSWDC 441

Most Recent Citation

Boateng v Dharamdas [2019] NSWCA 233

Cases Citing This Decision

Boateng v Dharamdas [2019] NSWCA 233
Citation 1 (Para 3)

…reassessed the respondent’s damages at $487,512.70, reduced to $292,507.62 as a result of the 40% contributory negligence finding (31 August 2018, [2017] NSWDC 441). The principal differences between the two damages assessments were that Levy DCJ did not award damages for non-economic loss or future economic loss.…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Glen v Sullivan [2015] NSWCA 191
Citation 1 (Para 221)

…ters: Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; (1960) 108 CLR 158, at [8]; Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; (1965) 114 CLR 164, at [4]; Glen v Sullivan [2015] NSWCA 191, at [43] – [47]…
SampCo Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWCA 117
Citation 2 (Para 276)

…n that subject to render the opinions reliable concerning the estimated number of hours per week required for such assistance: Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWCA 117; Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v Cosmidis; Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v DM & BP Wiskich Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 443.…
Cupac v Cannone [2015] NSWCA 114
Citation 3 (Para 10)

…on is well-recognised as being a more burdensome exercise where the opinions givers are not called or required to give oral evidence: Cupac v Cannone [2015] NSWCA 114, at [17] – [18]; Manly Municipal Council v Skene [2002] NSWCA 385, at [21] – [22].…
Redbro Investments Pty Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 73
Citation 4 (Para 12)

…These are matters that must be grappled with in the course of the required analysis: Redbro Investments Pty Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 73, at [53]; Coote v Kelly [2013] NSWCA 357, at [39] following Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57, at [129] – [130].…
Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v Cosmidis [2013] NSWCA 443
Citation 5 (Para 276)

…equired for such assistance: Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWCA 117; Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v Cosmidis; Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v DM & BP Wiskich Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 443.…
Coote v Kelly [2013] NSWCA 357
Citation 6 (Para 12)

…with in the course of the required analysis: Redbro Investments Pty Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 73, at [53]; Coote v Kelly [2013] NSWCA 357, at [39] following Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57, at [129] – [130].…
Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5
Citation 7

…2015] NSWCA 117 State of NSW v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133, (2000) 54 NSWLR 536 Strinic v Singh [2009] NSWCA 15 Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5, (2012) 246 CLR 182 Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57 Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; (1960) 108 CLR 158 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Martin Gabriel Dh…
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr [2012] NSWCA 13
Citation 8 (Para 300)

…Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201, at [5]; State of NSW v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133, (2000) 54 NSWLR 536, at [72]; Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr [2012] NSWCA 13, at [7], [25] – [27].…
Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227
Citation 9 (Para 52)

…. That is in contradistinction to where such matters are more peripherally noted less reliably and in more general background terms: Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227.…
Strinic v Singh [2009] NSWCA 15
Citation 10

…[2015] NSWCA 73 Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWCA 117 State of NSW v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133, (2000) 54 NSWLR 536 Strinic v Singh [2009] NSWCA 15 Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5, (2012) 246 CLR 182 Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57 Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; (1960) 108 CLR 158 Category: Principa…
Majkic v Bonnano [2008] NSWCA 253
Citation 11 (Para 11)

…absent, or inadequately provided, the matters in dispute must be determined according to the onus of proof on any particular issue: Majkic v Bonnano [2008] NSWCA 253, at [26], following Larson v Commissioner of Police [2004] NSWCA 126, at [48].…
Pham v Shui [2006] NSWCA 373
Citation 12

…9] NSWCA 227 Mt Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey [1970] HCA 60; (1970) 125 CLR 383 Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201 Pham v Shui [2006] NSWCA 373 Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; (1965) 114 CLR 164 Redbro Investments Pty Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 73 Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWC…
Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57
Citation 13 (Para 12)

…Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 73, at [53]; Coote v Kelly [2013] NSWCA 357, at [39] following Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57, at [129] – [130].…
Larson v Commissioner of Police [2004] NSWCA 126
Citation 14 (Para 11)

…ermined according to the onus of proof on any particular issue: Majkic v Bonnano [2008] NSWCA 253, at [26], following Larson v Commissioner of Police [2004] NSWCA 126, at [48].…
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
Citation 15 (Para 300)

…y be difficult to achieve does not mean that an attempt at assessment should not be made in the form of a buffer amount: Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201, at [5]; State of NSW v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133, (2000) 54 NSWLR 536, at [72]; Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr [2012] NSWCA 13, at [7], [25] – […
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22
Citation 16 (Para 52)

…king the record did so in the course of fulfilling a relevant duty which mandated that professional attention be given to such matters: Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118. That is in contradistinction to where such matters are more peripherally noted less reliably and in more general background terms: Mason…
Manly Municipal Council v Skene [2002] NSWCA 385
Citation 17 (Para 10)

…opinions givers are not called or required to give oral evidence: Cupac v Cannone [2015] NSWCA 114, at [17] – [18]; Manly Municipal Council v Skene [2002] NSWCA 385, at [21] – [22].…
State of New South Wales v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133
Citation 18 (Para 300)

…n attempt at assessment should not be made in the form of a buffer amount: Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201, at [5]; State of NSW v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133, (2000) 54 NSWLR 536, at [72]; Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr [2012] NSWCA 13, at [7], [25] – [27].…
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 20
Citation 19 (Para 255)

…it more probable than not, that uninjured, the plaintiff would have ceased his pre-accident work at the age of 70 years: Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 20; (1990) 169 CLR 638.…
Fox v Wood [1981] HCA 41
Citation 20 (Para 266)

…of thumb to represent the tax paid on his weekly workers’ compensation payments of $76,886.14, this being 20 per cent of those payments: Fox v Wood [1981] HCA 41; (1981) 148 CLR 438. The defendant initially made no concession concerning this component of the plaintiff’s claim: MFI “13”, par 248. The defendant la…
Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey [1970] HCA 60
Citation 21 (Para 221)

…ard, the defendant must take the plaintiff as he is found, including any underlying vulnerabilities to further injury: Mt Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey [1970] HCA 60; (1970) 125 CLR 383, at [18]. The defendant has not provided satisfactory evidence to rebut the plaintiff’s case on this point. The plaintiff has satisfied…
Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34
Citation 22 (Para 221)

…fied the requirements of s 5D of the CL Act as to those matters: Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; (1960) 108 CLR 158, at [8]; Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; (1965) 114 CLR 164, at [4]; Glen v Sullivan [2015] NSWCA 191, at [43] – [47]…
Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58
Citation 23 (Para 221)

…ebut the plaintiff’s case on this point. The plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of s 5D of the CL Act as to those matters: Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; (1960) 108 CLR 158, at [8]; Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; (1965) 114 CLR 164, at [4]; Glen v Sullivan [2015] NSWCA 191, at [43] – [47]…

Legislation Cited

Civil Liability Act 2002 (TAS) 5D
2 mentions (from Para 3)
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) 126
2 mentions (from Para 3)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) 151L
2 mentions (from Para 250)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) 136
1 mention
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) 31.27(1)(c)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	Dharamdas v Boateng [2017] NSWDC 441
Hearing dates:	9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 October 2017
Date of orders:	31 August 2018
Decision date:	31 August 2018
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Judge Levy SC
Decision:	1. The plaintiff’s damages are assessed in the amount of $487,512.70; 2. After apportionment by 40 per cent on account of the plaintiff’s own contributory negligence, judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $292,507.62; 3. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis unless a party is able to identify the basis for a different cost order; 4. The exhibits may be returned; 5. Liberty to apply on 7 days’ notice if further or other orders are required.
Catchwords:	TORTS – negligence – motor vehicle accident – pedestrian struck by taxi whilst crossing roadway – negligence and contributory negligence already determined; DAMAGES – assessment of claimed heads of damage
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5D Evidence Act 1995, s 136 Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, s 126, s 136, s 141B Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 31.27(1)(c), Sch 7 cl 5(1)(c) Workers’ Compensation Act 1987, s 151L
Cases Cited:	Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr [2012] NSWCA 13 Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v Cosmidis; Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v DM & BP Wiskich Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 443 Brown v Lewis [2006] NSWCA 87 Coote v Kelly [2013] NSWCA 357 Cupac v Cannone [2015] NSWCA 114 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118 Fox v Wood [1981] HCA 41; (1981) 148 CLR 438 Glen v Sullivan [2015] NSWCA 191 Larson v Commissioner of Police [2004] NSWCA 126 Majkic v Bonnano [2008] NSWCA 253 Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 20; (1990) 169 CLR 638 Manly Municipal Council v Skene [2002] NSWCA 385 Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227 Mt Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey [1970] HCA 60; (1970) 125 CLR 383 Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201 Pham v Shui [2006] NSWCA 373 Purkess v Crittenden [1965] HCA 34; (1965) 114 CLR 164 Redbro Investments Pty Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 73 Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWCA 117 State of NSW v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133, (2000) 54 NSWLR 536 Strinic v Singh [2009] NSWCA 15 Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5, (2012) 246 CLR 182 Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57 Watts v Rake [1960] HCA 58; (1960) 108 CLR 158
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Martin Gabriel Dharamdas (Plaintiff) Kofi Boateng (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr L Morgan (Plaintiff) Mr J Guihot (Defendant) Solicitors: Turner Freeman (Plaintiff) Moray & Agnew (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2012/332645
Publication restriction:	None

Nature of case and factual background	[1] – [3]
Issues	[4] – [6]
Evidence overview	[7] – [12]
Credibility and reliability of testimony	[13] – [32]
Plaintiff	[25] – [26]
Plaintiff’s…