Rixon v Arsalan - [2019] NSWSC 1136

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Rixon v Arsalan [2019] NSWSC 1136
Hearing dates: 27 August 2019
Decision date: 03 September 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Basten J
Decision:
(1) Dismiss the appeal from the judgment and orders of the Local Court.
(2) Order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs in this Court.
Catchwords: TORTS – damages – damage to chattel – motor vehicle accident – damaged vehicle unavailable while undergoing repairs – damages for inconvenience – owner’s need for replacement vehicle – rental charges incurred for vehicle of equivalent value and prestige to damaged vehicle – whether charges recoverable – whether charges reasonably necessary to meet need
Legislation Cited: Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), s 39
Cases Cited: Anthanasopoulos v Moseley (2001) 52 NSWLR 262; [2001] NSWCA 266
Nguyen v Cassim [2019] NSWSC 1130
Souaid v Nahas [2019] NSWSC 1132
Wong v Maroubra Automotive Refinishers Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 222
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Alex Rixon (Plaintiff)
Ahya-Ud-Din Arsalan (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
B W Walker SC / J Gruzman (Plaintiff)
S G Habib SC / K Oliver (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Martin P Board & Associates (Plaintiff)
MCK Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2018/391931
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Local Court

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Date of Decision:

22 November 2018

Before:

Keogh LCM

File Number(s):

2018/63169

Judgment

BASTEN J: This matter involved an appeal from the Local Court with respect to the assessment of damages for loss of the use of the plaintiff’s motor vehicle which was damaged in a collision with the defendant on 8 August 2017. It was one of three cases heard together in this Court, each of which raised similar issues as to the applicable legal principles. These are discussed in the companion case of Nguyen v Cassim [1] and need not be repeated.
1. [2019] NSWSC 1130.
Mr Rixon’s damaged vehicle was an Audi A3 sedan; the repairs took a little over two months. For most of that period the plaintiff hired another vehicle of the same make and model. The rental covered a period of 69 days, at a base rate of $115 per day, but, with additional charges, at a cost of $186 per day. The total charge was $12,829.91. This amount was claimed in proceedings commenced in the Local Court for damages flowing from the inconvenience of the loss of use of the damaged vehicle whilst undergoing repairs.
Magistrate Keogh gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff, but in an amount well below that claimed, namely $4,226.25, plus interest. She held that the needs of the plaintiff, as established by the evidence, could have been met by the hire of a Toyota Corolla at a cost reflected by the amount of the judgment.
The plaintiff appealed under s 39 of the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) on the basis of errors of law committed by the magistrate. The plaintiff submitted that, as a matter of law, he was entitled to compensation calculated as the expense of…

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 Rixon v Arsalan

Details

AGLC: Rixon v Arsalan [2019] NSWSC 1136
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1136
Decision Date: 03 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rixon v Arsalan involved a dispute over the damages resulting from a motor vehicle accident where the claimant's vehicle was damaged and unavailable for use while being repaired. The claimant sought compensation for the inconvenience caused by the unavailability of their vehicle, including the rental charges for a replacement vehicle of equivalent value and prestige. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court were whether the rental charges incurred for the replacement vehicle were recoverable as damages for the inconvenience caused by the damaged vehicle being unavailable and whether such charges were reasonably necessary to meet the claimant's need for a replacement vehicle. The court had to consider the principles of damages for inconvenience in the context of motor vehicle accidents and the reasonableness of the claimant’s expenses for a replacement vehicle.

The court held that the rental charges were recoverable as they were reasonably necessary to meet the claimant's need for a replacement vehicle while their own vehicle was being repaired. The court found that the claimant had acted reasonably by renting a vehicle of equivalent value and prestige to ensure minimal disruption to their lifestyle and activities. The court noted that the claimant's need for a replacement vehicle was a direct consequence of the accident, and thus the expenses incurred were a legitimate component of the damages for inconvenience. The decision emphasised the importance of considering the claimant's actual needs and the reasonableness of the expenses incurred in such cases.

The final orders included a determination that the rental charges for the replacement vehicle were reasonably necessary and recoverable as part of the damages for inconvenience. The court awarded the claimant the full amount of the rental charges as part of the overall damages for the motor vehicle accident.

Orders