District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Rahman v Stibbard [2024] NSWDC 131 Hearing dates: 18 – 20 September 2023 Date of orders: 24 April 2024 Decision date: 24 April 2024 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Waugh SC DCJ Decision: (1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $646,976.77.
(2) List the matter before me on 1 May 2024 at 10.00 am to hear argument about costs.
Catchwords: NEGLIGENCE – Motor Vehicle Accident – Assessment of damages – Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 – Lost earning capacity – attendant care services – buffers
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Cases Cited: Alldinger v Du Ranot [2023] NSWCA 271
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr [2012] NSWCA 13, (2012) 83 NSWLR 302
Avopiling Pty Ltd v Bosevski [2018] NSWCA 146
CSR v Eddy [2005] HCA 64, (2005) 226 CLR 1
Griffiths v Kerkmeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Husher v Husher [1999] HCA 47, (1999) 197 CLR 138
Jackson v Mazzafero [2012] NSWCA 170
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
Mead v Kerney [2012] NSWCA 215
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
South Western Sydney Local Health District v Sorbello [2017] NSWCA 201
State of New South Wales v Moss in [2000] NSWCA 133, (2000) 54 NSWLR 536
Texts Cited: Assessment of Damages for Personal Injury and Death” (5th ed. 2021) by Luntz and Harder
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff: MD Atuar Rahman
Defendant: Jay Bruce StibbardRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Litigant In Person (Plaintiff)
Mr D Ronzani (Defendant)
Barry Nilsson (Defendant)
File Number(s): 22/189101 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
Mr Rahman, the plaintiff, represented himself at the hearing. He claims damages for personal injury arising out of a car accident on 4 September 2017.
-
The defendant, Mr Stibbard, has admitted liability.
-
Mr Rahman is 40 years old, married with 2 young children. He was born in Bangladesh. He completed the equivalent of the HSC and commenced a degree course for a Bachelor of Accounting in Bangladesh before discontinuing that course and travelling to Australia on a student visa in 2002. After arriving in Australia, he completed courses in English and business management at Uniworld Business College in Sydney, a Bachelor of Accounting at the University of Central Queensland (Sydney Campus) and a “professional year” programme at Strathfield TAFE. He was granted permanent residency in 2010 and Australian Citizenship in 2011. He and his wife, Mrs Rukhshana Yeasmin, were married in 2008. At the time, Mrs Yeasmin was still living in Bangladesh. She came to Australia in 2011. Their 2 sons were born in Australia: Raheel in April 2013, and Aiyaz in March 2017, 6 months before the plaintiff’s accident.
-
Leading up to the accident Mr Rahman had been working both as an Uber driver and a taxi driver.
-
The accident happened in the early hours of…
Continue reading Rahman v Stibbard
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Rahman v Stibbard [2024] NSWDC 131
- Case
- [2024] NSWDC 131
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court had to determine were the extent of Mr Rahman's lost earning capacity, the necessity and cost of attendant care services, and the application of the statutory buffer provisions. The court needed to weigh evidence from expert witnesses regarding Mr Rahman's future earning potential and the costs of attendant care services. It also had to consider the effect of the statutory buffer provisions on the calculation of damages.
The court concluded that Mr Rahman's lost earning capacity was significant, and the attendant care services were necessary and appropriately priced. The buffer provisions were applied in accordance with the legislation, reducing the total damages award. The court found that the appropriate compensation for Mr Rahman was $646,976.77. The court also ordered that the matter return on 1 May 2024 at 10.00 am for argument on costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $646,976.77.
(2) List the matter before me on 1 May 2024 at 10.00 am to hear argument about costs.
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.