McLennan v Antonios

[2014] NSWDC 78

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

McLennan v Antonios [2014] NSWDC 78

Hearing dates:

10 and 11 March 2014

Decision date:

28 March 2014

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Gibson DCJ

Decision:

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff for $11,802.

(2) Costs reserved.

(3) Liberty to restore in 28 days.

(4) Exhibits retained for 28 days.

Catchwords:

TORT - motor vehicle accident - conflicting evidence of cause of accident - whether first defendant's poor prior driving record was tendency evidence for which no notice had been given (s 97 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)) - whether admissible under s 100 Evidence Act - quantum

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55, 97, 100 and 190
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 126
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.35

Cases Cited:

Amoud v Al Batat (2009) 54 MVR 167
Angel v Hawkesbury City Council (2008) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-955
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) v Hellicar (2012) 247 CLR 347
Blacktown City Council v Hocking (2008) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-956
Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (No 4) (2006) 229 ALR 136
Cartwright v Bluescope Steel Ltd (2013) 64 MVR 270
Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic (2006) 66 NSWLR 186
Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Kallouf v Middis [2008] NSWCA 61
Miller v Galderisi [2009] NSWCA 353
Thornton v Sweeney (2011) 59 MVR 155

Texts Cited:

-

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Plaintiff: Kirsty McLennan
First Defendant: Tony Antonios
Second Defendant: Nabil Antonios

Representation:

Plaintiff: Mr A J Lidden SC / Mr P N Khandhar
Defendants: Mr W M Fitzsimmons
Plaintiff: Brydens Law Office
Defendants: Moray & Agnew

File Number(s):

2012/108548

Publication restriction:

None

Judgment

1. The plaintiff by statement of claim filed on 5 April 2012 brings proceedings for damages arising out of the circumstances of a collision between her motor vehicle and the motor vehicle the first defendant was driving, which occurred at the intersection of Cumberland Highway and Canley Vale Road on 18 June 2009. The second defendant is the owner of the motor vehicle the first defendant was driving.

1. The plaintiff suffered the following injuries:

(a)   Bruising and abrasions;

(b)   Head injury;

(c)   Injury to left eye;

(d)   Injury to chest and ribs;

(e)   Injury to right leg;

(f)   Injury to both arms;

(g)   Injury to both knees;

(h)   Gross shock.

1. The plaintiff particularised her disabilities as follows:

(a)   Pain, discomfort and restriction of movement of right leg;

(b)   Reduced mobility generally;

(c)   Pain, discomfort and restriction of movement of right knee;

(d)   Pain, discomfort and restriction of movement of left knee;

(e)   Anxiety;

(f)   Depression;

(g)   Disturbed sleeping patterns;

(h)   Headaches;

(i)   Disturbed memory;

(j)   Difficulty concentrating;

(k)   Nightmares and flashbacks;

(l)   Requirement to undergo surgical intervention for fractured tibia and fibular (now performed);

(m)   Likely requirement to undergo further surgery for removal of internal fixing devices;

(n)   Likely exacerbation or development of…