Sullivan v Chasi - [2018] NSWDC 144

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sullivan v Chasi [2018] NSWDC 144
Hearing dates: 24, 25 and 26 October 2017, 1 December 2017
Date of orders: 08 June 2018
Decision date: 08 June 2018
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:
(a) judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $594,780.00;
(b) the defendants to pay the plaintiff’s costs, as agreed or assessed;
(c) liberty to apply to vary (b);
(d) Exhibits to be returned forthwith.

Catchwords: LIABILITY – who was the “driver” at the time of injury; scope of liability under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1989; contributory negligence
DAMAGES – assessment – no issue of principle
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Motor Vehicles Act 1959
Cases Cited: Belanger v The Queen (1970) 2 CCC 206
Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v Cosmidis; Boral Bricks Pty td v DM & BP Wiskich Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 443
Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Limited [2006] HCA 11
Pender v Power Coal [2002] NSWSC 925
R v McDonagh [1974] QB 448
Shortland County Council and the Government Insurance Office (NSW) [1973] 2 NSWLR 257
State Government Insurance Commission v Sweeny (1989) 52 SASR 139
Trans v Allen and Anor (1996) 24 MVR 492
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Barry Daniel Sullivan (Plaintiff)
Nariman Chasi (1st Defendant)
Walid Akel (2nd Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr G Graham (Plaintiff)
Mr P Deakin QC with Ms N Compton (1st and 2nd Defendants)
Solicitors:
Lamrocks (Plaintiff)
Moray and Agnew (1st and 2ndDefendants)

File Number(s): 2015/217311
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Procedural History

Introduction

The Major Issue

The Evidence

Oral Evidence
The Plaintiff
Lisa Michelle Sullivan

The Plaintiff’s Medical Evidence
Professor Ghabrial
Professor Bolin
Dr Horace Ting
Susie Mullen, OT
Dr Alan Home
Dr Vidyasagar Casikar
Other Medical Reports and Records

The Defendants’ Medical Evidence
Dr Seamus Dalton, Rehabilitation Physician and Sports Physician
Dr Ian Barrett

Other Documents Relied Upon by the Defendants

Submissions re Liability

Findings Relating to Liability and Causation

Determination of Liability

Damages

The Plaintiff’s Claim
The Defendants’ Position

Assessment of Damages

Non-Economic Loss
Past Treatment Expenses
Future Treatment Expenses
Economic Loss Generally
Past Economic Loss
Future Economic Loss
Domestic Assistance Generally
Future Domestic Assistance

Summary of Assessment of Damages

Judgment

procedural history

These proceedings were commenced by the filing of a Statement of Claim on 22 July 2015. The hearing commenced in Parramatta on 24 October 2017 with submissions concluding in Sydney on 1 December 2017.

introduction

The plaintiff’s claim relates to an incident which occurred on 13 October 2011 at approximately 2.45pm.
The plaintiff was a licensed testing officer employed by the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority (now RMS). At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was conducting a driving examination of the first defendant, the vehicle being driven (a Mazda 3, registration number BVH 60S) was owned by the second defendant.
The circumstances of the incident will be discussed in detail below. It is sufficient, for introductory purposes, to…

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 Sullivan v Chasi

Details

AGLC: Sullivan v Chasi [2018] NSWDC 144
Case: [2018] NSWDC 144
Decision Date: 08 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sullivan v Chasi involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Sullivan, and the defendants, Chasi, regarding liability and damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff sought compensation for injuries sustained during the incident, which occurred when the defendant, Chasi, was allegedly operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the plaintiff argued that the defendant was the driver at the time of the accident and was therefore liable for the injuries sustained.

The primary legal issues the court was required to address were whether the defendant was the driver at the time of the injury, and if so, whether the plaintiff’s contributory negligence should reduce the damages awarded. The court also needed to determine the scope of the defendant’s liability under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1989 and assess the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendant was indeed the driver at the time of the accident, as evidenced by the available evidence. The court held that the defendant's liability under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1989 was not limited by the plaintiff’s contributory negligence. In assessing the damages, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to the full amount claimed, without any reduction due to contributory negligence. The court awarded the plaintiff the sum of $594,780.00 in damages, along with an order for the defendants to pay the plaintiff’s costs as agreed or assessed. The court also granted the plaintiff liberty to apply to vary the costs order and directed that the exhibits be returned forthwith.

Orders

Orders of the court

(a) judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $594,780.00;

(b) the defendants to pay the plaintiff’s costs, as agreed or assessed;

(d) Exhibits to be returned forthwith.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Sullivan v Chasi [2018] NSWDC 144
Hearing dates:	24, 25 and 26 October 2017, 1 December 2017
Date of orders:	08 June 2018
Decision date:	08 June 2018
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:	(a) judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $594,780.00; (b) the defendants to pay the plaintiff’s costs, as agreed or assessed; (c) liberty to apply to vary (b); (d) Exhibits to be returned forthwith.
Catchwords:	LIABILITY – who was the “driver” at the time of injury; scope of liability under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1989; contributory negligence DAMAGES – assessment – no issue of principle
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 Motor Vehicles Act 1959
Cases Cited:	Belanger v The Queen (1970) 2 CCC 206 Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v Cosmidis; Boral Bricks Pty td v DM & BP Wiskich Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 443 Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Limited [2006] HCA 11 Pender v Power Coal [2002] NSWSC 925 R v McDonagh [1974] QB 448 Shortland County Council and the Government Insurance Office (NSW) [1973] 2 NSWLR 257 State Government Insurance Commission v Sweeny (1989) 52 SASR 139 Trans v Allen and Anor (1996) 24 MVR 492
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Barry Daniel Sullivan (Plaintiff) Nariman Chasi (1st Defendant) Walid Akel (2nd Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr G Graham (Plaintiff) Mr P Deakin QC with Ms N Compton (1st and 2nd Defendants) Solicitors: Lamrocks (Plaintiff) Moray and Agnew (1st and 2ndDefendants)
File Number(s):	2015/217311
Publication restriction:	None