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 7Cases 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 22Category: Principal judgment Parties: Proceedings 2017/364452; 2018/110500; 2018/26922
Proceedings 2017/364445; 2018/110490; 2018/26860
Yena Foong (Appellant)
Osama Wadea Ghaly (Respondent)
Yena Foong (Appellant)
Diane Frances McLellan (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Self-represented Appellant
I D Roberts SC (Respondents)
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
-
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.
-
McCOLL JA: I agree with Macfarlan JA’s reasons and the orders his Honour proposes.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] NSWCA 280
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.