Foong v Ghaly; Foong v McLellan

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Foong v Ghaly; Foong v McLellan [2018] NSWCA 280
Hearing dates: 28 September 2018
Decision date: 23 November 2018
Before: Beazley ACJ at [1];
McColl JA at [2];
Macfarlan JA at [3]
Decision:

Appeals and applications for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: TORTS – self-represented appellant alleged she was injured in two motor vehicle accidents – liability admitted in District Court – appellant awarded $1,250 damages in each action – no error demonstrated on appeal
Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 141B
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 31.23, Sch 7
Cases Cited: Akins v National Australia Bank (1994) 34 NSWLR 155
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 WLR 586
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Proceedings 2017/364452; 2018/110500; 2018/26922
Yena Foong (Appellant)
Osama Wadea Ghaly (Respondent)

  Proceedings 2017/364445; 2018/110490; 2018/26860
Yena Foong (Appellant)
Diane Frances McLellan (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Self-represented Appellant
I D Roberts SC (Respondents)

  Solicitors:
Self-represented Appellant
Moray & Agnew (Respondents)
File Number(s): CA 2017/364452; 2018/110500; 2018/26922; 2017/364445; 2018/110490; 2018/26860
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Citation:
[2017] NSWDC 303; [2017] NSWDC 343
Date of Decision:
3 November 2017; 12 December 2017
Before:
Gibson DCJ
File Number(s):
2014/115934; 2014/200147

Judgment

  1. BEAZLEY P: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons of Macfarlan JA. I agree with his Honour’s reasons and proposed orders.

  2. McCOLL JA: I agree with Macfarlan JA’s reasons and the orders his Honour proposes.

  3. MACFARLAN JA: On 2 March 2011 Ms Yena Foong, the appellant, was involved in a motor vehicle accident caused by the fault of Ms Diane McLellan, a respondent. On 26 September 2011 Ms Foong was involved in a further motor vehicle accident, on this occasion caused by the fault of the respondent Mr Osama Ghaly.

  4. Ms Foong claimed damages for negligence against the two respondents in separate actions in the District Court. Ms Foong alleged that in each accident she had suffered injuries to her head, neck, back, both arms, both shoulders, both knees and had suffered psychological injuries. She also alleged that she had sustained substantial economic and other loss.

  5. After the respondents admitted liability, Ms Foong’s claims came before Gibson DCJ for assessment. Of the damages that Ms Foong claimed against each respondent (in excess of $20 million), her Honour awarded Ms Foong $1,250 in each action ([2017] NSWDC 303). Her Honour rejected Ms Foong’s evidence that she had been seriously injured in the accidents and found that she had only suffered mild soft tissue injuries from which she recovered within weeks of the two motor vehicle accidents occurring.

  6. Ms Foong appeals to this Court against the judgment in each action and, lest it be considered that there is less than $100,000 at issue in each appeal, she also seeks leave to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Foong v Ghaly; Foong v McLellan and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] NSWCA 280
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, representing herself, alleged injury from two motor vehicle accidents. Liability for both accidents was admitted in the District Court, where the appellant was awarded $1,250 in damages for each incident. The appellant appealed these decisions.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court judge had erred in assessing the damages awarded to the appellant. The appellant contended that the damages awarded were inadequate, suggesting a misapplication of legal principles or factual error in the assessment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the District Court's assessment of damages. The judges were satisfied that the District Court judge had properly considered the evidence before her and applied the correct legal principles in determining the quantum of damages. Consequently, the appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact that would warrant intervention by the appellate court.

The appeals and applications for leave to appeal were dismissed, with the appellant ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals and applications for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

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.