District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Grigoriadis v Sidiropoulos [2019] NSWDC 486 Hearing dates: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 August; 22, 25 October; 3 December 2018; 8 and 22 February 2019; (close of submissions 22 March 2019) Date of orders: 13 September 2019 Decision date: 13 September 2019 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Judge Levy SC Decision: See [332] for orders
Catchwords: TORTS – negligence – motor vehicle accident – factual findings concerning disputed factual circumstances and related determination of whether the first defendant was negligent and whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff; DAMAGES – assessment of claimed heads of damage Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B, s 5C, s 5D, s 5R, s 5S, s 15B
Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW), s 29, s 33
Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 136, s141B
Social Security Act 1991 (Cwth), s 1160, s 1184
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 20.15Cases Cited: Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v Cosmidis; Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v DM & BP Wiskich Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 443
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118
Insurance Australia Ltd t/as NRMA Insurance v O’Rourke [2017] NSWSC 494
Mt Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383; [1970] HCA 60
Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 58
Redding v Lee (1983) 151 CLR 117; [1983] HCA 16
Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWCA 117
Todd v Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Limited [2006] NSWDDT 33
Wiki v Atlantis Relocations (NSW) Pty Ltd (2004) 60 NSWLR 127; [2004] NSWCA 174
Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485; [1995] HCA 53Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kiparissia Grigoriadis (Plaintiff)
Harry Sidiropoulos (First Defendant)
The Nominal Defendant (Second Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr E Romaniuk SC with Mr P Macarounas (Plaintiff)
Mr R Cavanagh SC with Mr B Wilson (First defendant)
Mr J Catsanos (Second defendant)
AJB Stevens Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Sparke Helmore (First defendant)
Moray & Agnew (Second defendant)
File Number(s): 2015/281176 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
Table of Contents
Nature of case
[1]
Parties
[2] – [3]
Factual content to plaintiff’s claim
[4] – [7]
Defences
[8] – [9]
Issues
[10] – [12]
Evidence overview
[13] – [20]
Transcription issues
[21] – [27]
Review of the respective factual accounts
[28] – [65]
Mr Christopher Grigoriadis
[29] – [41]
Plaintiff, Mrs Kiparissia Grigoriadis
[42] – [54]
First defendant, Mr Harry Sidiropoulos
[55] – [65]
Review of expert evidence on liability issues
[66] – [155]
Mr Jamieson - reports
[67] – [72]
Dr Gibson - reports
[73] – [76]
Dr McIntosh - reports
[77] – [84]
Mr Griffiths - reports
[85] – [88]
Joint report of liability experts
[89] – [90]
Concurrent oral evidence from liability experts
[91] – [109]
Evaluation and findings on liability expert evidence
[110] – [154]
Utility of expert evidence on liability issues
[155]
Credibility and reliability of testimony
[156] – [177]
Mr Grigoriadis
Continue reading Grigoriadis v Sidiropoulos
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Grigoriadis v Sidiropoulos [2019] NSWDC 486
- Case
- [2019] NSWDC 486
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved both the determination of negligence and contributory negligence. The court had to examine the evidence and make factual findings concerning the circumstances of the accident. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the first defendant's driving was negligent, which would establish liability. Additionally, the court had to evaluate whether the plaintiff's actions, if any, contributed to the accident, which would impact the assessment of damages. The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injury, loss of earning capacity, and damages for pain and suffering.
The court found that the first defendant was negligent in the operation of the vehicle, leading to the accident. The evidence supported a finding that the first defendant was driving at a speed that was excessive for the road conditions and failed to maintain proper control of the vehicle. In terms of contributory negligence, the court determined that the plaintiff did not contribute to the accident, as there was no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff was negligent in any way. The court also assessed the damages claimed by the plaintiff, taking into account the findings of negligence and the nature of the injuries sustained. The court ordered that the first defendant was liable for the full amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff, with no reduction for contributory negligence.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [332] for orders
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.