SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Scuderi v Raskurasingham |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 41 |
Hearing Date(s): | 28 October 2016 |
DecisionDate: | 24 February 2017 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | Appeal allowed and judgment sum varied – see [72] |
Catchwords: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIALAppeal from Magistrates Court – Assessment of damages from motor vehicle accident – No challenge to finding that plaintiff’s evidence unreliable – Challenge to adequacy of award for numerous heads of damage – no issue of principle |
Legislation Cited: | Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) |
Cases Cited: | Baxter v Insurance Australia Ltd [2015] ACTSC 273 Davies v Grgic [2006] ACTSC 14 De Marco v Italo-Australian Club (ACT) Ltd [2010) ACTSC 28 Dennis v Australian Capital Territory [2005] ACTSC 118 Eames v Shane [2012] ACTSC 116 Franklins Ltd v Burns; Burns v Franklins Ltd [2005] NSWCA 54 Klobucar v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 6 Planet Fisheries v La Rosa (1968) 119 CLR 118 Precision Plastics Pty Ltd v Demir (1975) 132 CLR 362 Sutherland Shire Council v Major [2015] NSWCA 243 |
Parties: | Vince Scuderi (Appellant) Nadarajah Raskurasingham (First Respondent) Insurance Australia Limited t/a NRMA Insurance (Second Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr D Jenkins (Appellant) Mr J Turnbull SC (Respondents) |
| Solicitors Howes Kaye Halpin (Appellant) Moray & Agnew (Respondent) | |
File Number(s): | ACTCA 103 of 2015 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Dingwall Date of Decision: 30 October 2015 Case Title: Scuderi v Raskurasingham & anor Citation: CS 122 of 2015 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Magistrates Court given on 30 October 2015. The Magistrate was dealing with an assessment of damages arising out of a motor-vehicle accident which occurred on 18 May 2010. The hearing of the claim took place over three days in June 2014. The magistrate ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $30,880. The appellant, who was the plaintiff below, has appealed from that decision.
The appeal is brought as of right under s 274 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT). Such an appeal is by way of rehearing. The relevant principles to be applied are set out in Urbaniak Bak v Prail [2014] ACTSC 171 at [51]-[54]. Having regard to the delay between a hearing of the case and the magistrate’s decision I need to approach the appeal in the light of the principles summarised in Klobucar v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 6 at [25].
For convenience I will refer to the appellant as the plaintiff and the respondents as the defendants.
The plaintiff claimed that as a result of the motor vehicle accident he had been unable to take up employment at a restaurant where he would have earned in excess of $1000 per week. A significant issue at trial turned upon whether or not he had in fact been employed in that position…
Continue reading Scuderi v Raskurasingham
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Scuderi v Raskurasingham [2017] ACTSC 41
- Case
- [2017] ACTSC 41
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence and the principles of assessing damages in personal injury cases. It noted that while the plaintiff's evidence was deemed unreliable, the court in the original judgment still awarded damages based on the totality of the evidence. The appellate court considered the extent to which the damages awarded reflected the actual losses suffered by Scuderi. After a detailed analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles, the court found that the original judgment did not adequately account for several heads of damage. Specifically, the court determined that the awards for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and economic loss were insufficient, given the nature and impact of Scuderi's injuries.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment sum was varied to better reflect the damages suffered by Scuderi. The court provided detailed reasons for its assessment, ensuring that the revised award more accurately represented the losses incurred. The final orders included a variation of the damages awarded, reflecting the court's determination on the appropriate compensation for the plaintiff. This decision underscored the importance of a thorough assessment of damages in personal injury cases, even when the reliability of the plaintiff's evidence is in question.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed and judgment sum varied – see [72]
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.