Hoblos v Alexakis

The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal by the plaintiff, Hoblos, against an order of the District Court concerning the assessment of damages. The dispute arose from a claim for damages for a major depressive disorder, where the primary judge had found the plaintiff's evidence to be complicated by exaggeration or malingering, leading to a question of whether any damages were recoverable.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in their approach to assessing damages, particularly in light of the findings of exaggeration or malingering. This involved determining how such findings impact the entitlement to and assessment of damages for a diagnosed condition, and whether the evidence presented allowed for a proper assessment of the plaintiff's loss.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had made an error in their assessment of damages. The court reasoned that while exaggeration or malingering could affect the quantum of damages, it did not necessarily preclude an award altogether. The court applied principles of tortious damages, emphasizing that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for proven losses, even if some aspects of their presentation were unreliable. The court noted that the primary judge's findings were not sufficiently clear to determine the extent to which the proven condition was affected by the unreliable evidence.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the District Court's orders. The court directed that written submissions be provided by both parties on the assessment of damages, considering whether the Court of Appeal or the District Court should undertake this assessment. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.