Herreen v Ciftci

Herreen v Ciftci concerned an appeal by the defendant against a damages award made by a trial judge to the plaintiff, who had suffered injuries in a motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, a permanent resident of Australia who had arrived from Turkey, was a passenger in a vehicle that was struck from behind by the defendant's car. The plaintiff claimed to have sustained soft tissue injuries to his right wrist, shoulder, neck, and back, and later alleged he suffered from a conversion disorder and chronic pain disorder, in addition to depressive and adjustment disorders. The defendant's case at trial heavily challenged the plaintiff's credibility and the extent of his injuries.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the trial judge erred in her assessment of the plaintiff's credibility and, consequently, whether the damages awarded were excessive. Specifically, the defendant sought to overturn the trial judge's findings of fact, which were based significantly on her assessment of the plaintiff's honesty and the genuineness of his reported pain and disability, even in the absence of definitive medical corroboration for all his symptoms.

The appellate court, comprising Doyle CJ, Bleby and White JJ, considered whether the defendant had discharged the onus of satisfying the court that it was appropriate to overturn the trial judge's findings of fact. The court noted that the trial judge had found the plaintiff to be an honest witness who was endeavouring to answer questions to the best of his ability, and that his statements and demonstrations of pain and disability in court were honest and not intentionally misleading. The trial judge had relied on the principle established in *Glavinas v Holden’s Motor Company Limited*, which allows for damages to be awarded for pain and suffering and incapacity genuinely felt and experienced by a plaintiff, even if the cause cannot be precisely defined by conventional physical or psychiatric labels, provided the plaintiff is assessed as being truthful. However, the defendant argued that the plaintiff's credibility had been successfully challenged.

The appellate court concluded that the defendant had made good its challenge to the trial judge's findings of fact regarding the plaintiff's credibility. Consequently, the court determined that the damages awarded by the trial judge should be reduced. The reasons for this conclusion were that the defendant had satisfied the court that it was appropriate to overturn the factual findings made by the trial judge concerning the plaintiff's honesty and the extent of his claimed disability.