Rahman v Stibbard

Case [2024] NSWDC 131


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

Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438

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

Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327

White v Benjamin [2015] NSWCA 75

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 Stibbard
Representation:

Counsel:
Litigant In Person (Plaintiff)
Mr D Ronzani (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Barry Nilsson (Defendant)
File Number(s): 22/189101
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. 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.

  2. The defendant, Mr Stibbard, has admitted liability.

  3. 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.

  4. Leading up to the accident Mr Rahman had been working both as an Uber driver and a taxi driver.

  5. The accident happened in the early hours of…

Continue reading Rahman v Stibbard

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rahman v Stibbard [2024] NSWDC 131
Case
[2024] NSWDC 131
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rahman v Stibbard, the plaintiff, Mr Rahman, sought compensation from the defendant, Mr Stibbard, for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The dispute centred around the assessment of damages, including lost earning capacity, attendant care services, and the impact of buffers under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. The matter was heard in the District Court of New South Wales.

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.