Grigoriadis v Sidiropoulos

Case [2019] NSWDC 486


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 20.15
Cases 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 53
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Kiparissia Grigoriadis (Plaintiff)
Harry Sidiropoulos (First Defendant)
The Nominal Defendant (Second Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr E Romaniuk SC with Mr P Macarounas (Plaintiff)
Mr R Cavanagh SC with Mr B Wilson (First defendant)
Mr J Catsanos (Second defendant)

  Solicitors:
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

Details
AGLC
Grigoriadis v Sidiropoulos [2019] NSWDC 486
Case
[2019] NSWDC 486
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grigoriadis v Sidiropoulos was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Grigoriadis, brought an action against the first defendant, Sidiropoulos, for damages following a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff also sued the second defendant, who was the registered owner of the vehicle driven by the first defendant, on the basis of vicarious liability. The primary dispute concerned the factual circumstances of the accident, including the speed of the vehicle, the actions of the drivers, and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. The court was tasked with determining whether the first defendant was negligent and, if so, whether the plaintiff's own actions contributed to the accident.

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.