Tran v Claydon - [2003] WADC 19

TRAN -v- CLAYDON [2003] WADC 19

Last Update: 14/02/2003

TRAN -v- CLAYDON [2003] WADC 19
Link to Appeal:	[2003] WASCA 318
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WADC 19
Case No:	CIV:2183/2000	Heard:	5-7 MARCH, 7 AUGUST, 19 & 20 SEPTEMBER 2002
Coram:	HH JACKSON DCJ	Delivered:	03/02/2003
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	48	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Damages assessed in the sum of $38 918.94
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	NGOC LAM TRAN NIGEL CLAYDON
Catchwords:	Motor vehicle accident Assessment of damages
Legislation:	Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943
Case References:	Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 249 Jongen v CSR Ltd & Anor (1992) A Tort Rep 81-192 Maiwood v Doyle [1983] WAR 210 Nyssen v Foy [2000] WADC 210 St George Club Ltd v Hines (1961-62) 35 ALJR 106 Wylde v 'Arriaza, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970359; 23 July 1997 Nil

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : TRAN -v- CLAYDON [2003] WADC 19 CORAM : HH JACKSON DCJ HEARD : 5-7 MARCH, 7 AUGUST,
19 & 20 SEPTEMBER 2002 DELIVERED : 3 FEBRUARY 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 2183 of 2000 BETWEEN : NGOC LAM TRAN

Plaintiff

AND

NIGEL CLAYDON

Defendant

Catchwords:

Motor vehicle accident - Assessment of damages

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943

Result:

Damages assessed in the sum of $38,918.94

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr I L K Marshall

Defendant : Mr J P T Olivier

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : S C Nigam & Co

Defendant : Talbot & Olivier

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

Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 249
Jongen v CSR Ltd & Anor (1992) A Tort Rep 81-192
Maiwood v Doyle [1983] WAR 210
Nyssen v Foy [2000] WADC 210
St George Club Ltd v Hines (1961-62) 35 ALJR 106
Wylde v 'Arriaza, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970359; 23 July 1997

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 HH JACKSON DCJ: The plaintiff who was born in 1964, was injured in a motor vehicle collision on 14 April 1999. His then employer's Hyundai panel van was struck by a Mercedes sedan driven by the defendant which turned across his path of travel. The defendant admits liability. The plaintiff seeks damages and the matter came before me for assessment. The hearing was extended over some six months because of over-optimistic listing of trial dates and the consequent unavailability of medical witnesses.

2 The plaintiff's statement of claim alleges he suffered injuries as a result of the collision comprising "(a) soft tissue injury to the neck, (b) soft tissue injury to the back; and (c) nervous shock." It lists a long list of residual disabilities and claims various consequential losses. I note that the statement of claim does not particularise any sacroiliac injury nor loss of memory or concentration. The claim for economic loss is for total loss from the time 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 Tran v Claydon

Details

AGLC: Tran v CLAYDON [2003] WADC 19
Case: [2003] WADC 19
Decision Date: 3 FEBRUARY 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an action brought by the plaintiff, Tran, against the defendant, Claydon, following a motor vehicle accident. Tran sought damages for personal injury sustained as a consequence of the accident. The court was required to determine the extent of the injuries, the impact on Tran's life, and the appropriate compensation to be awarded. This involved examining medical evidence, expert opinions, and Tran's own testimony regarding pain, suffering, and loss of amenity.

The primary legal issue was the quantification of damages for Tran's injuries, which included physical pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and any future medical costs. The court had to consider the extent of the injuries, their impact on Tran's ability to work and engage in daily activities, and the likely future implications. Expert medical evidence was provided to assist in assessing the severity of the injuries and their long-term effects.

The court, after considering all the evidence, determined that Tran was entitled to damages totalling $38,918.94. This sum reflected compensation for past pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and future medical expenses. The court took into account the severity of the injuries, the impact on Tran's quality of life, and the expert opinions provided. The award was made based on a comprehensive assessment of all factors relevant to the quantification of damages in such cases.

The final order of the court was that the defendant, Claydon, pay the plaintiff, Tran, the sum of $38,918.94 as compensation for the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident. This amount was determined to be the appropriate compensation considering all the evidence and the legal principles applicable to the assessment of damages in personal injury cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Damages assessed in the sum of $38

918.94

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.