Sun v Hafeeza - [2006] NSWSC 78

CITATION: Sun v Hafeeza [2006] NSWSC 78

HEARING DATE(S): 21 February 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
10 March 2006

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice Malpass at 1

DECISION: The notice of motion filed by the plaintiff is dismissed; an order is made that the proceedings be transferred to the District Court; the plaintiff is to pay the costs of both notices of motion.

CATCHWORDS: Admission of liability for breach of duty of care - admission purportedly withdrawn - questions pertaining thereto - breach put in issue in pleadings - application to strike out denial of liability - relevant considerations - transfer of proceedings to District Court.

LEGISLATION CITED: District Court Act 1973, s143
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, s81
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rule 14.28

CASES CITED: Maile v Rafiq [2005] NSWCA 410
Ness v Graffen (2003) 60 NSWLR 549

PARTIES: Ling Juan Sun (Plaintiff)
Michael Hafeeza (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20394/04

COUNSEL: Mr K Andrews (Plaintiff)
Mr S E M McCarthy (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Keddies (Plaintiff)
McLachlan Chilton (Defendant)

- 10 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

Associate Justice Malpass

10 March 2006

20394 of 2004 Ling Juan Sun v Michael Hafeeza

JUDGMENT

1 His Honour: The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 21 July 2001. She was walking across Macquarie Road, Auburn. A collision took place between the plaintiff and a motor vehicle driven by the defendant. The conditions were dark (it was about 6.30pm). The defendant had his headlights on. There was street lighting, but it is a badly lit road with large trees (which blocked lighting).

2 There is issue as to how the accident occurred. The plaintiff may have walked across the road without looking to her left. One area of contest is the location and extent of the damage to the vehicle. The point of contact may have been the offside of the vehicle near the driver’s door. On the defendant’s version, the damage may have been minor (mirror and windscreen).

3 One aspect of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff is an allegation that she has little recall of what took place in the accident. There is evidence that people were seen attending the plaintiff following the accident (including a doctor and his relative who had come from a nearby church).

4 In September 2001, the plaintiff submitted a claim form to the insurer. A police report was obtained. The insurer engaged the services of an investigator (Gary Cox Investigations Pty Limited). In March 2002, the investigator reported back to the insurer. It had, inter alia, obtained a statement from the defendant. It had also interviewed a witness (Kyong-Bin Park), whose name had been provided by the insurer.

5 The insurer failed to make the requisite determination within the prescribed three months. As a consequence, a deemed denial of liability flowed from that failure.

6 Subsequent thereto, by letter dated 16 April 2002, the insurer made an admission…

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 Sun v Hafeeza

Details

AGLC: Sun v Hafeeza [2006] NSWSC 78
Case: [2006] NSWSC 78
Decision Date: 10 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sun v Hafeeza involved a legal dispute between the plaintiff, Sun, and the defendant, Hafeeza. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an incident. The nature of the dispute centred on whether Hafeeza was liable for the injuries and the validity of an admission of liability that Hafeeza later sought to retract. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria.

The court had to determine several legal issues. The primary issue was whether Hafeeza's admission of liability was valid, given that Hafeeza later sought to withdraw the admission. The court also had to consider the implications of the breach of duty of care being put in issue in the pleadings and whether the plaintiff's application to strike out Hafeeza's denial of liability was justified. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the proceedings should be transferred to the District Court due to the complexity and potential quantum of damages.

In its reasoning, the court examined the circumstances surrounding the admission of liability and its subsequent withdrawal. The court considered the relevant factors for determining the validity of an admission, including the timing of the withdrawal, the reasons provided, and the impact on the proceedings. The court also reviewed the pleadings to understand the context in which the breach of duty of care was put in issue. The court concluded that the admission was valid and that the application to strike out the denial of liability was appropriate. Given the potential for significant damages, the court ordered the transfer of the proceedings to the District Court.

As a final order, the court ruled that the admission of liability stood, denied the application to strike out the denial, and ordered the transfer of the proceedings to the District Court.

Orders