Ibrahim v Purdy - [2022] WADC 57

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   IBRAHIM -v- PURDY [2022] WADC 57
CORAM:   SHARP DCJ
HEARD:   22-25 NOVEMBER 2021
DELIVERED          :   20 JUNE 2022
FILE NO/S:   CIV 4416 of 2019
BETWEEN:   ZIYA IBRAHIM
Plaintiff
AND
AARON WAYNE PURDY
Defendant

Catchwords:

Tort - Negligence - Defendant driver involved in motor vehicle accident - Negligence admitted - Whether plaintiff suffered physical injury - Whether plaintiff suffered psychiatric condition - Post-traumatic stress disorder - Causation - Damages - Assessment

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA)
Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995 (Cth)
Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA)

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff
Plaintiff's damages assessed as $42,045.88

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr A A Nolan
Defendant	:	Mr G P Bourhill SC

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Trewin Norman & Co
Defendant	:	Mills Oakley

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Browne v Dunn (1894) 6 R 67 (HL)
Houlahan v Pitchen [2009] WASCA 104
Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa (1968) 119 CLR 118
Syme v Roos [2016] WADC 164
Winiarczyk v Tsirigotis [2011] WASCA 97
Zaghloul v Bayly [2021] WASCA 125

SHARP DCJ:

The plaintiff's claim

The plaintiff, Mr Ibrahim, seeks damages for personal injuries suffered on 19 August 2018 when a car driven by the defendant, Mr Purdy, entered the property on Amberton Avenue, Girrawheen, Western Australia (property) where Mr Ibrahim and his family lived. Mr Purdy's car collided with another car belonging to a friend of Mr Ibrahim which was parked on the driveway of the property. The friend's car, in turn, struck a vehicle belonging to Mr Ibrahim and it also struck the property itself.
I will refer to those events in these reasons as 'the accident'.
Mr Ibrahim contends (and Mr Purdy now concedes: defendant's outline of opening submissions dated 8 November 2021, par 2.2) that the accident was caused by Mr Purdy's negligence.
Mr Ibrahim alleges that the accident caused him to sustain injury. He says that his injuries include soft tissue and ligamentous injuries to his left arm and elbow and also psychological injury, including symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, panic attacks, generalised anxiety disorder and depression: plaintiff's statement of claim filed 11 November 2019 (Statement of Claim), pars 4.1 and 4.2.
Mr Ibrahim says that he has required and will continue to require various forms of treatment and assistance, including visits to and treatment from his general practitioner, from an orthopaedic surgeon and from a clinical psychologist, as well as physiotherapy treatment, massages, a home exercise programme, pain‑killing, anti‑inflammatory and antidepressant medication and various forms of radiological imaging, including ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): Statement of Claim, pars 5 and 5.1 ‑ 5.8.
Mr Ibrahim says that he has endured pain and suffering and suffered loss of amenities of life, including pain, tenderness, bruising and restriction of movement to his left arm and elbow, referred pain up and down his left arm, loss of strength and grip to his left arm, anxiety, stress, depression,…

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 Ibrahim v Purdy

Details

AGLC: Ibrahim v Purdy [2022] WADC 57
Case: [2022] WADC 57
Decision Date: 20 JUNE 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ibrahim v Purdy, the respondent, Mr. Purdy, a driver, was involved in a motor vehicle accident with the appellant, Mr. Ibrahim, the driver of another vehicle. Mr. Ibrahim alleged that he suffered from physical injuries and a psychiatric condition, specifically post-traumatic stress disorder, as a result of the collision. The matter was before the court to determine the extent of damages and causation in the case of admitted negligence by the defendant.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the plaintiff indeed suffered from the physical injuries and psychiatric condition he claimed, and if so, whether those conditions were a result of the accident. The court also needed to determine the appropriate assessment of damages for the injuries and conditions sustained by the plaintiff. Causation was a crucial element in this regard, as the plaintiff needed to establish that the accident was the direct cause of his claimed injuries.

The court found that Mr. Ibrahim had indeed suffered from both physical injuries and a psychiatric condition as a result of the accident. The court relied on medical evidence and expert testimony to substantiate the plaintiff's claims. In assessing the damages, the court took into account the extent of the physical injuries, the psychiatric condition, and the impact on the plaintiff's life. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff for his physical injuries, psychiatric condition, and the impact on his daily life and employment.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $XXX in damages for his physical injuries, psychiatric condition, and the impact on his daily life and employment. The court also awarded the plaintiff costs of the proceeding.

Orders