Legal Research
Cases
Varmedja v Varmedja

Varmedja v Varmedja

Case [2007] NSWDC 385 30 April 2007

Causation

Compensatory Damages

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Limitation Periods

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Ruzica Varmedja v Svetozar Ved Varmedja [2007] NSWDC 385

HEARING DATE(S): 27, 28, 29 September 2006, 4, 5 October 2006, 16, 17, 18, 19 April 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 April 2007

JURISDICTION: Civil

JUDGMENT OF: Walmsley SC DCJ at 1

CATCHWORDS: TORTS – Damages for physical and sexual assaults and batteries in marriage - DAMAGES – Whether necessary to make separate award for each of multiplicity of assaults / Lump sum appropriate method / Exemplary damages / Aggravated damages - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – Whether cause of action barred

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Family Provision Act 1982
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Legal Profession Act 1987
Limitation Act 1969
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 (ACT)
Evidence Act 1995
Civil Liability Act 2002

CASES CITED: Regina v Clarence (1988) 22 QBD 23
Regina v Clarke [1949] 2 All ER 448
Cetojevic v Cetojevic [2006] NSWSC 431
De Winter v Johnston, (unreported, Court of Appeal, per Powell JA, 23 August 1995)
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
South-West Area Health Service v Gabrielle [2001] NSWCA 477
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517
Gianoutsis v Glykis [2006] NSWCCA 137
Wainwright and Anor v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53
In the Marriage of C Kennon and D Kennon (1997) 22 FLR 1
Re application for Criminal Injuries Compensation (1991) 103 FLR 297
Dimas v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1992) 15 MVR 213
Nowlan v Marson Transport Pty Limited (2001) 53 NSWLR 116
Lamb v Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1
State of New South Wales v Riley [2003] NSWCA 208
New South Wales v Ibbett (2006) 229 CLR 638
In the Marriage of Marsh (1993) 17 FLR 289
A v M [1991] 2 NZLR 228
Whitfield v De Lauret and Co Limited (1920) 29 CLR 71

PARTIES: Ruzica Varmedja (Plaintiff)
Svetozar Ved Varmedja (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): 4041/05

COUNSEL: (P) R Sweet
(D) K Pierce

SOLICITORS: (P) Stojanovic Solicitors, Liverpool
(D) Armstrong Legal, Sydney

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:
1. The plaintiff claims damages for a series of sexual assaults and batteries of a most humiliating kind she says occurred while she lived with the defendant, her then husband, from April 2001 until she left him on 21 September 2002.

2. The plaintiff was born in Serbia on 22 September 1953 and is aged fifty three. The defendant was also born in Serbia. He was born on 3 March 1927 and is eighty. She was previously married in Serbia. She has an adult son from that marriage. Her son lives in Serbia. The defendant was married before he married the plaintiff; he has children and grandchildren. The defendant came to live in Australia in 1960. He has lived here ever since, becoming an Australian citizen in 1967. Until she came here to live with the defendant in early 2001 the plaintiff had lived most of her life in Serbia. She and the defendant first met in Serbia in…

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 Varmedja v Varmedja

Details

AGLC: Varmedja v Varmedja [2007] NSWDC 385
Case: [2007] NSWDC 385
Decision Date: 30 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, Varmedja sued Varmedja over multiple instances of physical and sexual assault and battery that occurred during their marriage. The plaintiff sought damages for the injuries and trauma caused by the defendant's actions. The court was tasked with determining whether it was necessary to make a separate award for each of the numerous assaults or whether a lump sum was an appropriate method of compensation. Additionally, the court had to decide whether exemplary and aggravated damages were applicable, and whether the cause of action was barred by limitation of actions.

The court considered whether each assault should be treated as a separate cause of action, or if a single award was sufficient. It determined that while each incident was distinct, the nature of the relationship and the cumulative effect of the assaults warranted a lump sum award to adequately compensate the plaintiff. The court found that exemplary damages were not appropriate given the context of the relationship, but that aggravated damages were warranted due to the severity and duration of the abuse. The court also ruled that the limitation of actions had not expired, allowing the plaintiff to pursue damages for the assaults.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff a lump sum for the physical and sexual assaults, including aggravated damages. The defendant was also directed to pay legal costs. The court clarified that the award was not intended to set a precedent for the amount of damages in similar cases, but to provide appropriate compensation for the plaintiff's suffering. The decision emphasised the importance of recognising the cumulative impact of domestic violence and ensuring that victims receive adequate support and justice.

Orders