Legal Research
Cases
Souaid v Nahas

Souaid v Nahas

Case [2019] NSWSC 1132 3 September 2019

Appeal

Causation

Compensatory Damages

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Souaid v Nahas [2019] NSWSC 1132
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:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – appeal – appeal without leave on question of law – no appeal from findings of fact – availability of appeal with leave on questions of “mixed law and fact”
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), ss 39, 40
Cases Cited: Anthanasopoulos v Moseley (2001) 52 NSWLR 262; [2001] NSWCA 266
Beamish v Kanakis [2017] WADC 33; 91 SR (WA) 261
Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384 (HL)
Droga v Cannon [2015] NSWSC 1910
Nguyen v Cassim [2019] NSWSC 1130
Wong v Maroubra Automotive Refinishers Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 222
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Bilal Souaid (Plaintiff)
Hanin Nahas (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
B W Walker SC / M Kimber SC / W Richey (Plaintiff)
S G Habib SC / K Oliver (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Spectre Law Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Ligeti Partners (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2018/324684
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Local Court

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Date of Decision:

25 September 2018

Before:

S Freund LCM

File Number(s):

2017/310160

Judgment

BASTEN J: The plaintiff appeals from a judgment in the Local Court awarding him damages for the loss of use of his motor vehicle after it was damaged in a collision which was the fault of the defendant. The plaintiff claimed an entitlement to recover rental charges in an amount of $11,128.41 incurred over a period of 40 days during which his vehicle was undergoing repairs. Magistrate S Freund found that reasonable compensation for the loss of use of the vehicle for that period was an amount of $2,805.60. Judgment was given for that amount, together with interest running from 25 September 2018.
There is a single short issue involved in the case: that is whether the magistrate erred in allowing the cost of a replacement vehicle, being a vehicle of lower value than the prestige vehicle (a Lexus IS 250F Sport sedan) which was damaged. The plaintiff’s legal representatives managed to articulate this point in no fewer than 27 grounds of appeal. To the extent that nine of the grounds were said to involve questions of “mixed law and fact” leave was sought pursuant to s 40(1) of the Local Court Act 2007 (NSW). The other grounds, which were said to involve an appeal “only on a question of law” enjoyed an appeal as of right pursuant to s 39(1) 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 Souaid v Nahas

Details

AGLC: Souaid v Nahas [2019] NSWSC 1132
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1132
Decision Date: 03 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Souaid v Nahas, the plaintiff sought damages for damage to a chattel following a motor vehicle accident. The defendant, Nahas, was held liable for the damages incurred by the plaintiff, Souaid. The dispute involved the extent of the damages for which the defendant could be held liable, specifically regarding the costs incurred by the plaintiff for renting a replacement vehicle while their own vehicle was being repaired. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which considered the appeal on a question of law regarding the recoverability of certain costs.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the rental charges incurred by the plaintiff for a replacement vehicle of equivalent value and prestige to the damaged vehicle were recoverable as damages, and whether these charges were reasonably necessary to meet the plaintiff's need for a replacement vehicle. The court was required to balance the principle of compensating the plaintiff for the actual loss suffered against the need to ensure that the damages awarded were not excessive or speculative.

The court found that the rental charges were reasonably necessary to meet the plaintiff's need for a replacement vehicle during the repair period. The plaintiff's need for a vehicle of equivalent value and prestige was deemed justified to avoid significant inconvenience and maintain their social and professional standing. The court emphasised that the damages awarded should adequately compensate for the actual loss, without being excessive. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the lower court was upheld, confirming that the rental charges were recoverable as part of the damages for the damaged chattel.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the rental charges incurred by the plaintiff were recoverable as part of the damages for the damaged vehicle. The defendant was held liable for these costs, which were deemed reasonably necessary to compensate the plaintiff for the inconvenience and necessity of obtaining a replacement vehicle while the damaged vehicle was being repaired. The court's decision provided clarity on the recoverability of such charges in similar future cases, ensuring that the compensation awarded was both fair and proportionate to the actual loss suffered.

Orders