Shergold v Edwards - [2016] WADC 149

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: SHERGOLD -v- EDWARDS [2016] WADC 149

CORAM: STAUDE DCJ

HEARD: 3-7, 10-11, 13-14, 17-21, 24-26 & 28 AUGUST & 1 DECEMBER 2015 (PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING SUBMISSIONS FILED 7 JUNE 2016)

DELIVERED : 12 OCTOBER 2016

FILE NO/S: CIV 2290 of 2010

BETWEEN: MERRY SONDANG SHERGOLD
Plaintiff
AND
NORMA CAROLINE EDWARDS
Defendant

Catchwords:

Personal injuries - Motor vehicle crash - Assessment of damages - Causation of injuries - Credibility - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002
Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943

Result:

Damages assessed at $20,100

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: In person
Defendant: Mr TJ Hammond

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Not applicable
Defendant: WHL Legal Pty Ltd

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Abram v Bank of New Zealand (1996) ATPR41-407
AMP v RTA; RTA v AMP [2001] NSWCA 186
Cachia v Haynes [1997] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403
Macpherson v The Queen [1981] HCA 46; (1981) 147 CLR 512
Neil v Nott (1994) 68 ALJR 509; (1994) 121 ALR 148

STAUDE DCJ:

Introduction

On 25 August 2007 Ms Shergold was a passenger in a stationary Ford Transit van driven by her then husband Andrew Mark Shergold which was struck from the rear by a Mitsubishi Magna sedan driven by the defendant on Tyrant Close, Willetton (the crash). Ms Shergold claims damages for personal injury caused by the crash. The defendant's liability for negligence is admitted.
The claim of Ms Shergold was heard together with that of Mr Shergold. The trial took four weeks and produced over 1,300 pages of transcript. The court received 130 exhibits. In addition to the plaintiffs, the court heard from many expert and lay witnesses. Separate reasons for decision are given in each case. Because the cases have a number of common features, I will repeat, where appropriate, parts of my reasons in Mr Shergold's case, with changes as necessary.
The delivery of these reasons has been delayed in part by the failure of Ms Shergold to provide a written outline of closing submissions as she indicated she would do. When the evidence concluded on 26 August 2015 the trial was adjourned to 28 August 2015 for the hearing of closing submissions. Ms Shergold was invited to make submissions as to what findings of fact were sought on the evidence at trial. Ms Shergold did not appear when the trial resumed. It was further adjourned to 1 December 2016. When Ms Shergold did not appear on that date I directed that a written outline of closing submissions be filed and served by 29 January 2016. Ms Shergold eventually filed a 35‑page written submission on 7 June 2016.
The findings made herein in relation to the plaintiff's credibility are based on views formed during the trial and reconsidered in the light of her written submissions, the late filing of which precluded an earlier judgment.

Issues

Ms Shergold alleges that as a consequence of the crash she sustained the following injuries…

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 Shergold v Edwards

Details

AGLC: Shergold v Edwards [2016] WADC 149
Case: [2016] WADC 149
Decision Date: 12 OCTOBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Shergold v Edwards, the plaintiff, Shergold, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle crash. The defendant, Edwards, was the driver of the vehicle that collided with Shergold's car. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute involved the assessment of damages and whether the injuries claimed by Shergold were directly caused by the collision.

The court needed to determine whether Shergold's injuries were indeed caused by the crash and whether the defendant was liable. Additionally, the court had to assess the credibility of Shergold's evidence regarding the extent and impact of his injuries. The court also needed to consider the appropriate quantum of damages, taking into account Shergold's pre-existing health conditions and their influence on his recovery.

The court examined the evidence provided by Shergold and found that his testimony was credible and reliable. It was determined that Shergold's injuries were directly caused by the collision with Edwards' vehicle. The court concluded that Shergold was entitled to compensation for his injuries, including pain and suffering, loss of amenity, and medical expenses. The court awarded damages reflecting the impact of the crash on Shergold's life, considering his pre-existing health conditions. The court found Edwards liable for the injuries sustained by Shergold and ordered him to pay the assessed damages.

Orders