Falco v Aiyaz; Falco v Falzon

In *Falco v Aiyaz* and *Falco v Falzon*, the appellant, who suffered injury in two separate motor vehicle accidents, appealed against the District Court's apportionment of damages. The primary judge had found that the appellant required seven hours of domestic assistance and apportioned liability for this and other damages equally between the two respondents. The appellant contended that the primary judge erred in assessing non-economic loss and the need for domestic assistance, and specifically questioned whether the threshold requirement for awarding damages for past and future gratuitous care under section 141B(3) of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW) had been satisfied.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the primary judge had erred in their assessment of damages, particularly concerning non-economic loss and the quantum of domestic assistance required. A key issue was the application of section 141B(3) of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW), which prescribes a threshold for awarding damages for gratuitous care. The court had to determine if the evidence presented met this statutory requirement.

The court dismissed the appeals by the appellant against both respondents, finding no error in the primary judge's assessment of non-economic loss. However, the court allowed the cross-appeals by the respondents. In *Falco v Aiyaz*, the judgment in favour of the appellant was set aside and judgment was entered for the appellant in the sum of $5,805.25. In *Falco v Falzon*, the judgment against the respondent was set aside, and judgment was entered for the appellant in the sum of $81,240.10. In both matters, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.