Halley v Pinelis
[2025] VCC 1601
•7 November 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE COMMON LAW DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
GENERAL LIST
Case No. CI-24-05929
| JOEL HALLEY | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| TALI PINELIS | |
| Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | JUDICIAL REGISTRAR LYNCH | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 20 and 21 October 2025 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 7 November 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Halley v Pinelis | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1601 | |
JUDGMENT
---
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors | ||
| For the Plaintiff | The Plaintiff appeared in person | |||
| For the Defendant |
| Moray & Agnew |
HIS HONOUR:
Background:
1On 2 August 2023, the plaintiff was the driver of a motor vehicle which was involved in a transport accident with the at-fault defendant. The defendant’s insurer admitted liability and after deeming that the plaintiff’s vehicle was uneconomical to repair, paid the plaintiff an amount of $9,990, being the purported pre-accident market value of the vehicle.
2The plaintiff contends that the amount so assessed by the defendant’s insurer understated the value of his vehicle and that a greater amount should have been paid to him.
3The plaintiff initially commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria and following orders from that Court on 13 September 2024, the matter was transferred to the County Court.
4By orders of her Honour Judge Tran of this Court on 23 April 2025, a redacted amended statement of claim was deemed filed in the proceeding and formed the basis of the plaintiff’s claim before the Court. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, and costs.
The motor vehicle
5The plaintiff’s motor vehicle was a base variant Audi TT Mk1 2000, registered number ULB 289. The 2-wheel drive, 5-speed manual vehicle featured a 1.8 litre engine and was purchased by the plaintiff in June 2012 for $12,990. Following his purchase of the vehicle, in addition to regular servicing, the plaintiff had the vehicle resprayed, the engine reworked, the perforated leather interior and boot trim updated, and an iPad-style Pioneer stereo system with Bluetooth and a high-definition reverse camera fitted. At the time of the accident, the vehicle had travelled 345,540 kilometres.
The evidence:
6Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant gave evidence. The only witnesses called to give evidence during the trial were the experts engaged by the parties. For the plaintiff, Mr Brian Cowan, and for the defendant, Mr Graeme Cuthbert and Mr Brett Keating. Reports from each of these experts were tendered into evidence. The plaintiff also tendered an exhibit bundle. As the vehicle was not available for inspection, desktop assessments of the pre-accident market value of the vehicle were performed by all three experts.
Mr Brian Cowan
7Mr Cowan is based in New South Wales and gave his evidence via audiovisual link. Mr Cowan informed the Court he is a panel beater by trade and he ran panel beating businesses from 2003 until 2021. Mr Cowan informed the Court he previously held a wholesale motor trader’s licence, but that this licence had not been renewed since 2007. Mr Cowan informed the Court he had held Board-level positions with the Motor Traders’ Association of NSW.
8Mr Cowan prepared a report dated 6 March 2025, which was tendered into evidence by the plaintiff.
9Mr Cowan informed the Court he was engaged by the plaintiff to address three questions, namely:
(a) What was the pre-accident value of the plaintiff's vehicle at the time of the collision?
(b) What was the likely salvage value of the plaintiff's vehicle at the time of the collision?
(c) Was it economical to repair the plaintiff's vehicle following the collision?
10Mr Cowan’s expert opinion in relation to each of the matters put to him by the plaintiff was as follows:
(a) $22,500 to $24,500;
(b) $750; and
(c) repairs “would” exceed $25,000 (in evidence, Mr Cowan replaced the word “would”, with “could”).
11Mr Cowan informed the Court that, in reaching his conclusion as to the pre-accident market value of the plaintiff’s vehicle, he relied upon a quotation the plaintiff had provided to him from Shannons Insurance dated 30 January 2025, in which an agreed value of $17,500 had been applied to the plaintiff’s vehicle. This quotation was tendered into evidence by the plaintiff as part of a larger exhibit bundle.
12Mr Cowan informed the Court that, as Shannons Insurance holds a financial and insurance licence, he was satisfied the Agreed Value Quotation of $17,500 was an acceptable valuation of the plaintiff’s vehicle. Further, Mr Cowan informed the Court that, while he did undertake a search on the online “Car Sales” website, he was unable to find a comparative vehicle. Considering the upgrades made to the vehicle by the plaintiff following purchase by him, Mr Cowan gave a range of the pre-accident market value of the plaintiff’s vehicle to be between $22,500 and $24,500.
13At paragraph 18 of his report under the heading “Conclusion”, Mr Cowan opined:
“Joel Halley has invested approximately $30,000 purchasing and improving Audi TT. He was not at fault in accident that occurred on 02/08/2023 and he is being penalised with an unfair settlement of $9900. Joel should be able to negotiate a fair and reasonable settlement with Auto and General Insurance that reflects his investment.”
14Under cross-examination by counsel for the defendant, Mr Cowan conceded that:
(a) he had no recent experience in vehicle sales, having not held a wholesale motor car trader’s licence since 2007;
(b) time constraints in completing the report within a three-day period meant that he was only able to undertake a limited amount of research, and that he would usually require twenty-one days to complete a report;
(c) the odometer reading of a vehicle can influence its market value, but he had overlooked that the odometer reading of the plaintiff’s vehicle was 345,540 kilometres at the time of the collision;
(d) the only comparable vehicle found on his search of the Car Sales website was an Audi TT Quattro (all-wheel drive) variant, which was not the base variant owned by the plaintiff, and the base variant was less sought after than the Quattro variant;
(e) he relied on the Shannons Insurance Agreed Value Quotation from 30 January 2025, notwithstanding he was engaged to provide a market value of the vehicle as of 2 August 2023;
(f) he relied on the Shannons Insurance Agreed Value Quotation from 30 January 2025, notwithstanding the quotation was founded on an assumption that the plaintiff had not made any claim or accident within five years;
(g) he relied on the Shannons Insurance Agreed Value Quotation from 30 January 2025, notwithstanding the quotation was founded on the vehicle being undamaged and in good condition;
(h) he accepted the opinion that what he placed weight on, being the Agreed Value Quotation from Shannons Insurance dated 30 January 2025, was based on inaccurate information;
(i) the salvage value price of $1,000.00 obtained by Mr Keating, the expert engaged by the defendant, was fair and reasonable;
(j) he agreed with the opinion expressed by Mr Cuthbert, the expert engaged by the defendant, that the plaintiff’s vehicle has not reached the threshold for collectability and the model does not achieve very high resale prices;
(k) he agreed with the opinion expressed by Mr Cuthbert that, even if the plaintiff’s model vehicle was to become collectible, the plaintiff’s own vehicle, due to its very high kilometres, is never going to attain the same value as comparison vehicles with fewer kilometres travelled;
(l) he agreed with the opinion expressed by Mr Cuthbert that the cost of the respray and re-trim undertaken by the plaintiff would not return value spent, even on a low-kilometre vehicle, and that such upgrades do not have the same value-add on a vehicle which has travelled more than 345,000 kilometres;
(m) his reference in paragraph 18 of his report to amounts invested into the vehicle by the plaintiff is not a relevant consideration to determining the pre-accident market value of a vehicle;
(n) his reference in paragraph 18 of his report to the plaintiff not being at fault for the accident is not a relevant consideration to determine the pre-accident market value of a vehicle;
(o) his reference in paragraph 18 of his report to the plaintiff being penalised with an unfair settlement is not a relevant consideration to determine the pre-accident market value of a vehicle;
(p) his reference in paragraph 18 of his report that, the plaintiff should be able to negotiate a fair and reasonable settlement with Auto and General Insurance which reflects his investment, is not a relevant consideration to determine the pre-accident market value of a vehicle;
(q) after being challenged by counsel for the defendant that his comments in paragraph 18 could be perceived as being advocacy and were contrary to the expert witness Code of Conduct, he now wished to reverse his comments identified in that paragraph.
15While I found Mr Cowan to be a witness of truth, I find that the foundations of his expressed opinions to be flawed, such that I do not give his opinions any weight in reaching my decision.
Mr Graeme Cuthbert
16Mr Cuthbert is an automotive consultant who completed a motor mechanic apprenticeship and technicians certificate in the 1960s and then owned a mechanical and panel workshop until about 2001. He has continuously held a motor car trader’s licence since the late 1960s. Since 2001, Mr Cuthbert has owned and operated an automotive consultant business, which includes providing motor vehicle valuations, motor vehicle memorabilia valuations and motor vehicle insurance investigations.
17Mr Cuthbert prepared two expert reports dated 13 March 2025 and 19 August 2025 respectively. Both reports were tendered by the defendant.
18Mr Cuthbert gave evidence that, in his expert opinion:
(a) after conducting extensive online searches for comparable vehicles, the pre-accident market value of the plaintiff’s vehicle was $11,068.90, made up of $10,580.00 for the vehicle, plus stamp duty and transfer fees of $488.90. From this amount of $11,068.90 is to be deducted the salvage fee of the vehicle;
(b) his assessment considered the body respray, the reworking of the engine, the upgrading of the interior trim, and the stereo system upgrade with Bluetooth and the reversing camera, but that none of these improvements have led to any real gain in market value;
(c) his market appraisals revealed that comparative vehicles had travelled considerably lower kilometres than the plaintiff’s vehicle;
(d) the live market research data revealed that the Quattro variant attracts higher sales prices than the base variant owned by the plaintiff;
(e) he has personally assisted a client with trying to sell a 2005 Audi TT base variant and the best price offered was $7,500.00. This vehicle had travelled 67,500 kilometres;
(f) the plaintiff’s base model variant is not considered an emerging classic;
(g) the Shannons Insurance Agreed Value Quotation dated 30 January 2025 had no impact on his assessment of the pre-accident value of the plaintiff’s vehicle;
(h) the base model variant owned by the plaintiff was not an appreciating asset;
(i) rarely do you see an increase in the value of a vehicle when the work is undertaken in a vehicle that is not highly sought after;
(j) the Cowan report did not cause him to change his opinion or assessment of the pre-accident market value of the vehicle.
Mr Brett Keating
19Mr Keating is a qualified panel beater by trade and has a Certificate IV in motor vehicle assessing. He has been a motor vehicle assessor for the last six years. He is now based in Queensland, having previously resided in Victoria. His evidence was given by audiovisual link.
20Before becoming a vehicle assessor, Mr Keating was the area manager and part owner in several panel beating businesses. His role was to oversee the running of the business across five sites and involved all facets of the business.
21Mr Keating has provided two expert reports dated 13 March 2025 and 22 August 2025 respectively. Both reports were tendered by the defendant.
22Mr Keating gave evidence that, in his expert opinion:
(a) the plaintiff’s vehicle was in average condition based on the photos that he was provided;
(b) he sourced three salvage values for the vehicle, namely, $755.00; $603.00 and $1,100.00;
(c) he conducted a live-market search of comparable vehicles to the plaintiff’s vehicle, and it revealed seven vehicles for comparison;
(d) when comparing the advertised prices of the seven vehicles to that of the plaintiff’s vehicle, he applied the industry standard of allowing for an adjustment of $100.00 (up or down) for every 10,000-kilometre differential;
(e) the plaintiff’s vehicle had an estimated pre-accident market value of $7,146.00, being the average of the adjusted prices (considering the variations in the kilometres) of the seven vehicles from the live-market search;
(f) when comparing odometer readings of vehicles, the vehicle with the lower odometer reading will generally be worth more money than the vehicle with a higher odometer reading;
(g) that the Shannons Insurance Quote for Agreed Value obtained by the plaintiff on 30 January 2025 does not constitute the pre-accident market value of the plaintiff’s vehicle;
(h) the additions made to the vehicle by the plaintiff since purchase have not added to the pre-accident market value of the vehicle;
(i) his opinions and conclusions are not changed by the report of Mr Cowan.
Findings
23The resolution of the dispute in this proceeding involved an assessment of the expert evidence.
24As mentioned, the plaintiff contended that the defendant under-assessed the pre-accident market value of his vehicle. In support of that contention, he relied on the evidence from Mr Cowan.
25I have considered the totality of the evidence before me, together with the submissions made by both parties.
26For the reasons expressed, I prefer the expert evidence of Mr Cuthbert and Mr Keating to that of Mr Cowan.
27Mr Cowan made several concessions during his oral evidence. He accepted there were flaws in the assumptions and methods he set out in his written report. The effect of the cross-examination of Mr Cowan was to raise a very real doubt as to the method and accuracy of his assessment of the pre-accident value of the plaintiff’s vehicle.
28On the other hand, Mr Cuthbert and Mr Keating presented as credible witnesses. They each provided a more thorough analysis of the issues in dispute between the parties and considered a broader range of comparable vehicles to that undertaken by Mr Cowan.
29Accordingly, I am satisfied that the combined experience and expertise of Mr Cuthbert and Mr Keating outweighs that of Mr Cowan. I consider they gave cogent evidence for a conclusion that the insurer’s pre-accident market value of the plaintiff’s $9,900 was fair and reasonable.
30The result in this case turns on which body of expert evidence is accepted. As should be clear, I do not accept Mr Cowan’s written opinion and I do not attach much weight to his oral evidence. I prefer the expert evidence relied on by the defendant.
31I therefore find, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant’s assessment of the pre-accident market value of the plaintiff’s vehicle of $9,990.00 to be a fair and reasonable evaluation.
32Having made that finding, I will now hear from the parties with respect to the appropriate form of orders, including for costs, to finalise the proceeding.
33I direct that the defendant is to provide the plaintiff with a memorandum of the proposed orders sought by it considering the conclusions I have expressed. If the parties cannot agree on orders, then, at the request of either party, I will list the proceeding for a directions hearing to resolve any outstanding issues.
---
0
0
0