Loncar v Hadley - [2002] WADC 63

LONCAR -v- HADLEY [2002] WADC 63

Last Update: 11/04/2002

LONCAR -v- HADLEY [2002] WADC 63
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WADC 63
Case No:	CIV:1718/1999	Heard:	29-31 OCTOBER 2001
Coram:	HH JACKSON DCJ	Delivered:	05/04/2002
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	47	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Damages assessed in the sum of $24,740
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	VANESSA KRISTI LONCAR FREDERICK ANDREW HADLEY
Catchwords:	Motor vehicle collision Personal injuries Assessment of damages
Legislation:	Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943, s 3A, s 3B, s 3C, s 3D, s 3E
Case References:	Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 420 Nyssen v Foy [2000] WADC 210 Wylde v Arriaza, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970359; 23 July 1997 Nil

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : LONCAR -v- HADLEY [2002] WADC 63 CORAM : HH JACKSON DCJ HEARD : 29-31 OCTOBER 2001 DELIVERED : 5 APRIL 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 1718 of 1999 BETWEEN : VANESSA KRISTI LONCAR

Plaintiff

AND

FREDERICK ANDREW HADLEY

Defendant

Catchwords:

Motor vehicle collision - Personal injuries - Assessment of damages

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943, s 3A, s 3B, s 3C, s 3D, s 3E

Result:

Damages assessed in the sum of $24,740

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr T Lampropoulos

Defendant : Mr J R Brooksby

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Ilbery Barblett

Defendant : Greenland Brooksby

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

Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 420
Nyssen v Foy [2000] WADC 210
Wylde v Arriaza, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970359; 23 July 1997

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 HH JACKSON DCJ: The plaintiff was born on 9 August 1973 and was involved in a motor vehicle collision on 12 November 1997. The defendant admits liability for the collision and the matter accordingly came before me for assessment of damages only.

Plaintiff's background

2 The plaintiff completed 12 years of primary and secondary education and then an advanced certificate in applied science and an associate diploma in applied science at TAFE. After a time of unemployment, part-time work and overseas travel, she secured full-time employment with Main Roads Department and was so employed at the time of the collision. She was a keen netball player and umpired indoor netball at senior level on a paid basis during evenings.

3 Prior to the collision, the plaintiff was employed by Main Roads Department taking road samples of 10 kilograms or more, returning with them, and doing laboratory testing of them.

4 As a child, she had been found to have scoliosis at age 12, but grew out of that condition. She played golf at a state junior level and other sports socially, as well as netball and umpiring netball. She swam and did gym work also for fitness.

5 The plaintiff said that in 1996-1997, she was working full-time, umpiring netball about two nights per…

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 Loncar v Hadley

Details

AGLC: Loncar v HADLEY [2002] WADC 63
Case: [2002] WADC 63
Decision Date: 5 APRIL 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Loncar v Hadley was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from a motor vehicle collision that resulted in personal injuries to the plaintiff, Mr Loncar. Mr Loncar sought damages from the defendant, Ms Hadley, who was the driver of the other vehicle involved in the collision. The primary issues before the court were the extent of Mr Loncar's injuries and the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded. Mr Loncar argued that his injuries were severe and long-lasting, significantly impacting his quality of life, while Ms Hadley contended that the injuries were not as severe as claimed and that the damages sought were excessive.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's injuries were as severe as alleged and whether the damages claimed were reasonable and justifiable. In assessing the extent of Mr Loncar's injuries, the court considered medical evidence, expert opinions, and the plaintiff's own testimony. It was noted that Mr Loncar suffered a number of injuries, including a cervical strain, lumbar strain, and injuries to his left shoulder. The court also had to consider the impact of these injuries on Mr Loncar's ability to work and enjoy life, as well as the medical treatment he had received and would require in the future. After careful consideration of all the evidence, the court found that while Mr Loncar's injuries were genuine, the extent and impact of those injuries were not as severe as he had claimed. The court was satisfied that the damages claimed were excessive and reduced the amount to be awarded.

Ultimately, the court assessed the damages to be in the sum of $24,740, reflecting a balance between the genuine nature of Mr Loncar's injuries and the reasonable expectation of future medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, and pain and suffering. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the principles of fairness and proportionality in assessing damages for personal injuries. The court ordered that Ms Hadley pay the assessed damages to Mr Loncar.

Orders

Orders of the court

Damages assessed in the sum of $24,740

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.