Hatziandoniou v Ruddy

Case [2015] NSWCA 234


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hatziandoniou v Ruddy [2015] NSWCA 234
Hearing dates: 17 June 2015
Decision date: 14 August 2015
Before: Basten JA at [1]; Leeming JA at [2]; Simpson JA at [3]
Decision:

(1)  Appeal allowed;

 

(2)  Verdict and judgment set aside;

 (3)  There be a new trial limited to the questions of the liability of the respondent and contributory negligence.
Catchwords:

APPEAL - personal injury - motor vehicle accident - collision between truck and motorcycle - one party on wrong side of road - limited lay evidence as to which party on incorrect side - liquid from motorcycle on road - plaintiff failed to prove defendant on wrong side of road

 

EVIDENCE - expert evidence - exclusion of expert opinion - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 79(1) - opinion based on specialised knowledge – training, study or experience - whether trial judge erred in rejecting portions of expert report - unduly narrow approach taken by trial judge - expertise enables a person to extrapolate from general to particular - opinion wrongly excluded - matter remitted to District Court for new trial

DAMAGES - whether trial judge erred in quantification of future economic loss - Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 126 - whether appellant would have been able to return to engineering career following absence of 15 years - extent of impairment to earning ability cannot be accurately quantified - buffer allowed by trial judge appropriate
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55, 76, 79
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 126
Cases Cited: Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; 243 CLR 588
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: George Hatziandoniou (Appellant)
Michael Ruddy (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Williams SC/R O’Keefe (Appellant)
K P Rewell SC/J B Turnbull (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Shine Lawyers Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Moray and Agnew Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2014/196799
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court
Date of Decision:
11 December 2013
Before:
Delaney DCJ
File Number(s):
2013/12786

Judgment

  1. BASTEN JA: I agree with Simpson JA.

  2. LEEMING JA: I agree with Simpson JA.

  3. SIMPSON JA: By Amended Statement of Claim filed in the District Court on 27 February 2013 the appellant, George Hatziandoniou, claimed damages for personal injury sustained by him on 13 October 2010 when the motorcycle he was riding collided with a truck then being driven by the respondent, Michael Ruddy. On 20 June 2014, after a trial that had proceeded over two days in February, Delaney DCJ dismissed the appellant’s claim and entered verdict and judgment for the respondent. The appellant now appeals against those orders.

The relevant facts

  1. The collision occurred at about 8.00am on The Putty Road, at Putty in NSW. The Putty Road consists of two lanes only, one northbound and one south bound, each 3.5 metres wide. The road follows a generally north-south direction, although with significant bends and curves. At the part of the road relevant to these proceedings, the eastern…

Continue reading Hatziandoniou v Ruddy

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hatziandoniou v Ruddy [2015] NSWCA 234
Case
[2015] NSWCA 234
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Hatziandoniou v Ruddy* concerned a motor vehicle accident between a truck and a motorcycle. The central dispute revolved around which party was on the incorrect side of the road at the time of the collision, and consequently, who was liable for the resulting personal injuries. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the trial judge erred in excluding certain portions of the expert evidence tendered by the appellant, specifically concerning the reconstruction of the accident. Secondly, the Court had to consider whether the trial judge erred in the quantification of future economic loss awarded to the appellant.

Regarding the exclusion of expert evidence, the Court held that the trial judge had taken an unduly narrow approach to the application of section 79(1) of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW). The Court reasoned that expertise, derived from training, study, or experience, enables a person to extrapolate from general principles to specific circumstances, and that the excluded opinions, being based on such specialised knowledge, ought not to have been rejected. On the issue of damages, the Court found that the trial judge's allowance of a buffer for future economic loss was appropriate, given the difficulty in accurately quantifying the extent of the appellant's impairment to earning ability after a 15-year absence from his engineering career.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the verdict and judgment of the trial court, and ordered a new trial limited to the questions of the respondent's liability and contributory negligence.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal allowed;

(2) Verdict and judgment set aside;

(3) There be a new trial limited to the questions of the liability of the respondent and contributory negligence.

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.