Guzman v Zammit - [2003] NSWCA 224

CITATION: Guzman v Zammit [2003] NSWCA 224

HEARING DATE(S): 02/07/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 August 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Ipp JA at 17

DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed; 2. Judgment and verdict below set aside; 3. In lieu thereof verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $327,442.00; 3. Order the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, and to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act.

CATCHWORDS: PERSONAL INJURY - Re-assessment of damages.

PARTIES :
Guillermo Enrique Guzman
v
Joseph Zammit

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 41007 of 2002

COUNSEL: A: I Guihot
R: M Elkaim SC

SOLICITORS: A: Frisina & Associates
R: Ferguson Holz

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 912 of 2001

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Delaney J

CA 41007 of 2002

MEAGHER JA
IPP JA
Friday, 15 August 2003

GUILLERMO ENRIQUE GUZMAN v JOSEPH ZAMMIT

Judgment

1 MEAGHER JA: This is an appeal by a plaintiff against the inadequacies of a judgment in his favour by Judge Delaney in the District Court. He was injured in a motorcar accident which took place on 4 May 1998. It was conceded that the accident was caused by the defendant’s breach of duty. His Honour heard and determined the question of the quantum of damages owing to the plaintiff. His Honour arrived at the figure of $223,674.02. The plaintiff alleges that his Honour should have arrived at the figure of $388,642.02. There was no question of contributory negligence.

2 His Honour’s figure of $223,674.02 consists of the following components:

3 Almost every component is challenged.

4 His Honour found that the plaintiff did suffer the injuries he claimed, and that they arose out of the accident which he claimed. In this respect, the plaintiff was supported by a substantial body of expert medical evidence. There was one medical expert who was adverse to him, a Professor Oakeshott, who almost opined that the claimed injuries did not exist, whom his Honour rejected on almost all points. However, his Honour was not entirely happy with the plaintiff, who, he said, seriously exaggerated his disabilities.

5 Having considered all the evidence and having made his findings as to credibility, his Honour found that the non-economic loss was 30% of a most extreme case. The plaintiff invited us to increase this to 35%. In view of the greatly discretionary delicacy of choosing the correct percentage figure, I do not see how this Court could possibly interfere on this point.

6 But the main point of the plaintiff’s case is the alleged inadequacy of his Honour’s findings on past and future economic loss. In endeavouring to analyse the plaintiff’s submissions on this point it is not easy to calculate what a correct result should be: there are various obfuscatory factors. In…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Guzman v Zammit

Details

AGLC: Guzman v Zammit [2003] NSWCA 224
Case: [2003] NSWCA 224
Decision Date: 15 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Guzman v Zammit* concerned a re-assessment of damages in a personal injury matter. The parties involved were the appellant, Guzman, and the respondent, Zammit. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales before Meagher and Ipp JJA.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the original assessment of damages awarded to the plaintiff was appropriate, necessitating a re-assessment. This involved scrutinising the quantum of damages awarded at the trial level.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the original judgment and verdict. In its place, a new verdict was entered for the plaintiff, Guzman, in the sum of $327,442.00. The respondent, Zammit, was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and was granted a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed; 2. Judgment and verdict below set aside; 3. In lieu thereof verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $327,442.00; 3. Order the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, and to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act.

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.

CITATION:	Guzman v Zammit [2003] NSWCA 224
HEARING DATE(S):	02/07/03
JUDGMENT DATE:	15 August 2003
JUDGMENT OF:	Meagher JA at 1; Ipp JA at 17
DECISION:	1. Appeal allowed; 2. Judgment and verdict below set aside; 3. In lieu thereof verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $327,442.00; 3. Order the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, and to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act.
CATCHWORDS:	PERSONAL INJURY - Re-assessment of damages.
PARTIES :	Guillermo Enrique Guzman v Joseph Zammit
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 41007 of 2002
COUNSEL:	A: I Guihot R: M Elkaim SC
SOLICITORS:	A: Frisina & Associates R: Ferguson Holz

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 912 of 2001
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Delaney J