Legal Research
Cases
Megally v Bojanic (No 2)

Megally v Bojanic (No 2)

Case [2024] NSWSC 896 25 July 2024

Appeal

Expert Evidence

Adjournment

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Megally v Bojanic (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 896
Hearing dates: 24 June 2024
Date of orders: 25 July 2024
Decision date: 25 July 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Dhanji J
Decision:
(1)   Grant leave to appeal.
(2)   Dismiss the appeal.
(3)   The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs as agreed or assessed on the ordinary basis.

Catchwords:
APPEALS – civil - appeal from Local Court – where matter commenced in Small Claims Division – where matter transferred to General Division – where appeal arises from prosaic event – motor vehicle accident – damages – costs – where respondent accepts liability – where applicant seeks to litigate asserted errors but does not press any entitlement to his original claim – where appeal with respect to damages and interest concerns a very small amount – amount dwarfed by costs involved in continuing litigation – fantastical quality to at least one of applicant’s claims – several claims without merit or substance – leave to appeal granted – appeal dismissed
EVIDENCE – expert evidence – competing opinions of respective experts – conclave – joint experts report – issue as to legitimacy of invoice for repairs to vehicle – whether invoice can be deemed a “starting point” or benchmark for cost of repairs – “broad axe” approach - where it is unclear “who actually repaired the van, or who that person worked for”
CIVIL PROCEDURE – adjournment application – adjournment refused – where counsel withdrew and plaintiff unrepresented – an unusual turn – the solicitor for the applicant appeared

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW)
Local Court Act 2007 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Be Financial Pty Ltd as Trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v Das [2012] NSWCA 164
Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63; 98 ER 969
Capita Alternative Fund Services (Guernsey) Ltd v Drivers Jonas (A firm) [2012] EWCA Civ 1417, CA
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Hyder Consulting (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wilih Willhemsen Agency Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA
Megally v Bojanic [2023] NSWLC 9
Megally v Bojanic [2024] NSWSC 869
Orr v Cobar Management Pty Limited (2020) 103 NSWLR 36; [2020] NSWCCA 220
Picos v Western Pacific Automotive Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 536
Stocovaz v Fung [2007] NSWCA 199
Vetter v Lake Macquarie City Council (2001) 202 CLR 439; [2001] HCA 12
Zdrilic v Fuchs [2008] NSWSC 486

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: John Rauof Megally (Applicant/Plaintiff)
Andja Bojanic (Respondent/Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
W Richey (Respondent/Defendant)
Solicitors:
State Lawyers (Applicant/Plaintiff)
Turks Legal (Respondent/Defendant)

File Number(s): 2021/175446
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Local Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Citation:

Megally v Bojanic [2023] NSWLC 9

Date of Decision:

24 August 2023

Before:

Brender LCM

File Number(s):

2021/175446

JUDGMENT

On 21 December 2020 the respondent's vehicle collided with the rear of the applicant's vehicle, causing relatively…

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 Megally v Bojanic (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Megally v Bojanic (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 896
Case: [2024] NSWSC 896
Decision Date: 25 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Megally v Bojanic (No 2), the applicant, Mr Megally, appealed from the Local Court's decision on the quantum of damages in a motor vehicle accident case. The respondent, Mr Bojanic, had admitted liability. The case originated in the Small Claims Division, but was transferred to the General Division of the Local Court. The applicant sought to litigate perceived errors in the damages assessment, but did not press any entitlement to his original claim. The appeal primarily concerned a relatively small amount of damages and interest, which was significantly overshadowed by the costs involved in continuing litigation.

The legal issues before the court included the legitimacy of an invoice for repairs to the applicant's vehicle, which the applicant sought to use as a benchmark for the cost of repairs. There were competing opinions from respective experts and a joint experts' report, which the court considered in determining the proper assessment of damages. The court also had to address the applicant's claims that were either without merit or substance. The court was required to determine the appropriateness of the damages awarded, and whether the applicant's claims for additional expenses were justified.

The court found that several of the applicant's claims lacked merit or substance, including one that had a fantastical quality. The court rejected the applicant's argument that the invoice could be used as a benchmark for the cost of repairs, given the unclear circumstances surrounding the repair work. The court held that the Local Court's assessment of damages was appropriate and dismissed the appeal. The court also noted the significant costs involved in the litigation, which far exceeded the amount in dispute. The appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders