Hoveydai v Mak - [2021] QSC 16

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Hoveydai v Mak & Anor [2021] QSC 16
PARTIES: SHAHNAZ HOVEYDAI
(plaintiff)
v
MAN CHEOK VINCENT MAK
(first defendant)
AAI LIMITED T/AS SUNCORP INSURANCE
ABN 48 005 297 807
(second defendant)
FILE NO/S: BS 322 of 2020
DIVISION: Trial Division
PROCEEDING: Claim
DELIVERED ON: 12 February 2021
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 31 August 2020; 1 September 2020; 2 September 2020
JUDGE: Bond J
ORDER: The orders of the Court are that:

1. The parties are directed to bring in minutes of a
judgment in favour of the plaintiff reflecting the
Court’s reasons for judgment by 4:00pm on 19
February 2021.
2. The proceeding will be listed before Bond J on a date
to be fixed in the week commencing 22 February
2021 for the making of formal orders reflecting the
agreed position or, in default of agreement, for the
resolution of any remaining disputes.
3. The parties will be heard as to the orders which
should be made as to costs at the hearing referred to
in order 2.

CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff suffered physical and psychological injuries in a motor vehicle accident – where liability admitted – where the plaintiff’s pre-existing physical injuries had fully resolved prior to the accident – where the plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries from the second defendant as the insurer of the car driven by the first defendant – where damages are assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES – where the plaintiff was working as a registered nurse on a permanent part-time basis prior to the accident – where the plaintiff was unable physically to cope with the duties required of her in her previous role after the accident – where the plaintiff has continued to seek employment – whether the plaintiff has proven economic loss to the requisite standard – whether and to what extent the plaintiff’s psychological injuries impact her employment prospects
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – PERSONAL INJURIES – OTHER PECUNIARY DAMAGES – where the plaintiff received and continues to receive care and assistance from her husband following the accident – where the plaintiff expressed estimates of the time spent by her husband on various tasks in the absence of a diary or written record – whether care and assistance meets the threshold in s 59 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – where the parties agreed as to the award for special damages
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 59, s 60, s 61
Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld)
Beavan v Wagner Industrial Services Pty Ltd [2017] QCA 246,
distinguished
Qantas Airways Limited v Fisher [2014] QCA 329,…

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 Hoveydai v Mak

Details

AGLC: Hoveydai v Mak [2021] QSC 16
Case: [2021] QSC 16
Decision Date: 12 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hoveydai v Mak involved the plaintiffs, Hoveydai, who were suing the defendants, Mak, for various breaches of contract and misrepresentations. The dispute centred around the sale of a property, where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had not fulfilled their contractual obligations and had made misleading representations during the negotiation process. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide included whether there was a binding contract between the parties, whether the defendants had breached any terms of the contract, and whether any misrepresentations made by the defendants were misleading or deceptive. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiffs were entitled to any damages or other remedies for the alleged breaches.

The court found that there was a binding contract between the parties and that the defendants had breached several terms of the contract. The court also found that the defendants had made misleading representations to the plaintiffs during the negotiation process, which were misleading or deceptive. As a result, the court ordered the defendants to pay damages to the plaintiffs for the breaches of contract and misrepresentations. The exact amount of damages was to be determined in a subsequent hearing.

The orders of the court were that the defendants were liable for the breaches of contract and misrepresentations and that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages. The court also ordered that the matter be referred back to the same judge for the determination of the amount of damages to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the Court are that:

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.