Komuda v Parmaxidis

Case [2019] NSWDC 470


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Komuda v Parmaxidis [2019] NSWDC 470
Hearing dates: 5 September 2019
Date of orders: 06 September 2019
Decision date: 06 September 2019
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Russell SC DCJ
Decision:

(1) Dismiss the defendant’s Notice of Motion filed on 11 June 2019.
(2) Order that costs of the Motion be costs in the cause.

Catchwords:

PROCEDURE – Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) s 86(4) – whether insurer made request for medical examinations – evidence established that the insurer’s letter never received by plaintiff or his lawyers

 

PROCEDURE – Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) s 110 – whether insurer gave notice – whether plaintiff was in receipt of notice – evidence established that the insurer’s notice never received by plaintiff or his lawyers

  COSTS – costs in the cause
Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Kalazich v Yang [2012] NSWDC 261
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Bartlomiej Komuda (Plaintiff)
Luke Parmaxidis (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
N Ghabar (Plaintiff)
D Hanna (Defendant)

  Solicitors:
Drexler Litigation Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Moray & Agnew (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2019/117336

Judgment

Introduction

  1. By a Statement of Claim filed on 15 April 2019 the plaintiff sought damages from the defendant arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 6 February 2016. The proceedings are governed by the provisions of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) (the Act). A Statement of Particulars was filed on the same date.

  2. The defendant filed a Defence on 11 June 2019 raising issues under ss 86(4), 109 and 110 of the Act.

  3. By a Notice of Motion filed on 11 June 2019 the defendant sought the following orders:

  1. That these proceedings be dismissed because of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice dated 9 November 2017 issued by the defendant’s insurer pursuant to s 110 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 as a result of which his claim is taken to have been withdrawn.

  2. Further and in the alternative, that these proceedings be dismissed pursuant to s 86(4) of the MACA on account of the plaintiff’s failure, without reasonable excuse, to attend medical assessments arranged by the defendant’s insurer with Dr Allan, psychiatrist, on 1 May 2018 and with Dr Barrett, orthopaedic surgeon, on 29 May 2018.

  3. Further and in the alternative, that these proceedings be dismissed pursuant to s 109 of the MACA because they were commenced more than three years after the subject accident occurred and the plaintiff was not entitled to do so without the court’s leave (this claim was abandoned at the hearing of the Motion).

  4. That the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of this Notice of Motion and of these proceedings.

Relevant Provisions in the Act

  1. Section 86 of the Act provides as follows:

“86 Medical and other examination of claimant

(1) A claimant must comply with any request by the person against whom the claim is made or the person’s insurer:

(a) to undergo a medical examination by one…

Continue reading Komuda v Parmaxidis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Komuda v Parmaxidis [2019] NSWDC 470
Case
[2019] NSWDC 470
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Komuda, the plaintiff, brought an action against Parmaxidis, the defendant, seeking compensation for a motor accident. The dispute centred on whether the defendant's insurer had properly requested medical examinations and served a notice as required by sections 86(4) and 110 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW). The plaintiff argued that he never received the insurer's letter requesting medical examinations or the notice, which was essential for the proceeding's validity. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's claims about non-receipt of these critical documents were substantiated and if the defendant's insurer fulfilled its statutory obligations.

The court examined the evidence regarding the delivery and receipt of the requested medical examination letter and the notice. It considered whether the insurer had discharged its duty under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act by sending these documents. The plaintiff's assertions that neither he nor his legal representatives received the documents were central to the court's decision. The court assessed whether the evidence supported the plaintiff's claim of non-receipt and if this non-receipt could invalidate the proceeding.

In ruling on the matter, the court found that the plaintiff's evidence of non-receipt of the insurer's letter and notice was credible and supported by the lack of any countervailing evidence from the defendant. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claims about the non-receipt of the statutory documents were substantiated, which led to the dismissal of the defendant's Notice of Motion. Furthermore, the court determined that the costs of the motion should be borne by the defendant as costs in the cause.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Dismiss the defendant’s Notice of Motion filed on 11 June 2019.

(2) Order that costs of the Motion be costs in the cause.

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.