Metleg v Sheikh

[2016] NSWLC 6

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Metleg v Sheikh [2016] NSWLC 6
Hearing dates:	6 August 2015, 6 November 2015, 18 December 2015
Decision date:	25 January 2016
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Grogin LCM
Decision:	Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $9,060.51
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEEDINGS – motor vehicle accident – damages – cost of repairs – loss of use – hire of replacement vehicle – requirement for plaintiff to demonstrate need
Cases Cited:	Anthanasopoulos v Moseley [2001] 52 NSWLR 262 Droga v Cannon [2015] NSWSC 1910 Gary Ross v State Transit Authority of NSW & Sean Higgins [2015] NSWLC 10 Gordon Martin Pty Limited v State Rail Authority of New South Wales and Anor [2008] NSWSC 343 Hyder Consulting (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wilh Wilhelmsen Agency Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 313 Murphy v Brown (1985) 1 NSWLR 131 Re B [2009] 1 AC 11
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Omar Metleg (plaintiff) Tariq Sheikh (defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Gruzman for the plaintiff Mr Ahmed for the defendant
File Number(s):	2014/264821

Judgment

1. Mr Omar Metleg (the plaintiff) sues Mr Tariq Sheikh (the defendant) for damages allegedly arising out of a motor vehicle collision which occurred on 17 October 2013 at the intersection of Arlewis Street and Bent Street, Chester Hill. At the time of the collision, the plaintiff was the owner or bailee of a motor vehicle, a Hummer H2, and the defendant was the driver of the other motor vehicle. It is alleged that the defendant drove his motor vehicle negligently. Liability is admitted.

2. The defendant admits that, as a result of the collision, the plaintiff’s car was damaged and the plaintiff has suffered loss and damage.

3. It is alleged that whilst the plaintiff’s car was being repaired or replaced, the plaintiff suffered a loss of use and hired a replacement car. The defendant pleaded that it does not know and cannot admit this part of the claim.

4. The particulars of loss and damage claimed are:

Cost of repairs      $56,548.94

Plus loss of use      $17,600.00

TOTAL         $74,148.94

5. The defendant denies the particulars of loss and damage. The defendant asserts that the loss and damages which the plaintiff claims to have suffered is extravagant, unreasonable and not a fair and reasonable assessment of the loss sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the collision.

6. Mr Ahmed of Counsel on behalf of the defendant initially submitted that the plaintiff would not be able to ‘satisfy this Court of its (the plaintiff’s) quantum, not be able to satisfy this Court on the balance of probabilities that the damages it has suffered are fair, reasonable or necessary or put into question the justification and authentication by which it seeks to seek those damages’.

THE EVIDENCE

Omar Metleg

7. The plaintiff tendered two statements which became exhibits 1 and 2 and also was required for cross examination. He bought the Hummer in February 2010 from Maranello Auto Specialists for $101,000.00 (Transcript (6/8/15), p 8, line 14). The plaintiff agreed in cross…