Faraj v Fernando

[2018] NSWDC 313

District Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	Faraj v Fernando [2018] NSWDC 313
Hearing dates:	31 January 2018; 1 and 16 February 2018
Date of orders:	27 April 2018
Decision date:	27 April 2018
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	(1) Judgment for the plaintiff for $63,826.57. (2) Defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs, with liberty to apply. (3) Exhibits retained for 28 days.
Catchwords:	TORT – personal injury – assessment of damages
Legislation Cited:	Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, s 83, s 111, s 126
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 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Falzon [1998] VCA 79 Glen v Sullivan (2015) 71 MVR 417 Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Kendirjian v Ayoub [2008] NSWCA 194 Makita Australia Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 McGlen-McLeod v Galloway [2012] NSWCA 368 Merhi v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd [2014] VSCA 328 Pham v Shui [2006] NSWCA 373 Seltsam Pty Ltd v Ghaleb [2005] NSW 208 Sretenovic v Reed [2009] NSWCA 280 State of New South Wales v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536 Sutherland Shire Council v Major [2015] NSWCA 243
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Plaintiff: Hussein Faraj Defendant: Thusiru Fernando
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff: Mr G Hickey Defendant: Mr J Catsanos   Solicitors: Plaintiff: Premier Compensation Lawyers Defendant: Hall & Wilcox
File Number(s):	2016/255821
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

Introduction

1. The plaintiff by statement of claim filed on 25 August 2016 seeks damages arising from injuries suffered on 14 November 2013 when he was getting into a car which was struck by the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant’s compulsory third party insurer admitted liability by a letter dated 4 July 2014.

2. The issues the subject of this judgment relate to the assessment of damages only. The plaintiff is not entitled to non-economic loss. Past out-of-pocket expenses are agreed at $23,826.57 and the plaintiff claims only a cushion for future out-of-pocket expenses. The significant issue is the degree of past and future economic loss.

3. The issues identified by the defendant, and as effectively agreed to by the plaintiff, are as follows:

1.   The plaintiff’s credit.

2.   Inconsistency between the plaintiff’s evidence and the surveillance evidence.

3.   Whether the plaintiff has any accident-related disability and if so, the extent.

4.   The significant and role of the plaintiff’s documented prior workers compensation injuries.

5.   The amount and nature of the plaintiff’s income over time including; the assessment of the plaintiff’s pre-injury earnings and his earnings but for the accident.

6.   Whether or not the accident caused any impairment of the plaintiff’s role in his pre-accident employment.

7.   The existence, nature and extent of any past economic loss.

8. The application of s.126 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 199…