Vasa v Ubiparipovic

Case [2017] NSWDC 269

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Vasa v Ubiparipovic & Anor [2017] NSWDC 269
Hearing dates: 31 August, 1 and 29 September 2017
Date of orders: 04 October 2017
Decision date: 04 October 2017
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Judge Levy SC
Decision:

1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $125,008.25;

 

2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;

 

3. The exhibits may be returned;

 4. Liberty to apply on 7 days’ notice if further or other orders are required.
Catchwords: TORTS – negligence – motor vehicle accident – liability admitted; DAMAGES – assessment of plaintiff’s damages for economic loss
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Evidence Act 1995, s 60
Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999, s 126(1), s 141B
Uniform Civil Procedure Regulations, r 31.27(1)(c); Sch 7 cl 5(1)(c)
Cases Cited:

Anthanasopoulos v Moseley [2001] NSWCA 266
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr [2012] NSWCA 13
Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v Cosmidis; Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v DM & BP Wiskich Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 443
Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited v Haleluka [2012] NSWCA 343
Coote v Kelly [2013] NSWCA 357
Daw v Toyworld (NSW) Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 25
Graham v Baker [1961] HCA 48; (1961) 106 CLR 340
HG v The Queen [1999] HCA 2; (1999) 197 CLR 414
Kars v Kars [1996] HCA 37; (1996) 187 CLR 354
Larson v Commissioner of Police [2004] NSWCA 126
Mt Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey [1970] HCA 60; (1970) 125 CLR 383
Majkic v Bonnano [2008] NSWCA 253
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission [1995] HCA 5; (1995) 182 CLR 1
Miller v Galderisi [2009] NSWCA 353
Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 58
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
Redbro Investments Pty Ltd v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 73

Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWCA 117
State of NSW v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133, (2000) 54 NSWLR 536
Strinic v Singh [2009] NSWCA 15
Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57
Zheng v Cai [2009] HCA 52; (2009) 239 CLR 446
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Hazel Vasa (Plaintiff)
Jadranka Ubiparipovic (First defendant)
DJ Construction & Rendering Pty Ltd (Second defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms M Fraser (Plaintiff)
Mr D Hanna (Defendants)

  Solicitors:
Palazzolo & Associates (Plaintiff)
Mallos Davis Lawyers (Defendants)
File Number(s): 2017/40513
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Table of Contents

Nature of case and factual background

[1] – [3]

Issues

[4] – [7]

Evidence overview

[8]

Credit and reliability of testimony

[9] – [19]

Plaintiff

[10] – [12]

Plaintiff’s father

[13]

Plaintiff’s mother

[14] – [16]

Mrs French

[17] – [18]

Facts

[20] – [178]

Plaintiff’s background circumstances

[21] – [23]

Pre-accident schooling

[24] – [29]

Pre-accident health of the plaintiff

[30] – [33]

Accident circumstances

[34] – [37]

Injuries

[38] – [39]

Ambulance and hospital assessments of injuries

[40] – [43]

Initial general practitioner follow-up

[44] – [45]

Subsequent…

Continue reading Vasa v Ubiparipovic

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Vasa v Ubiparipovic [2017] NSWDC 269
Case
[2017] NSWDC 269
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Vasa, brought an action against the defendant, Ubiparipovic, in the County Court of Victoria, seeking damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The parties admitted liability, and the only issue before the court was the assessment of damages for economic loss. The plaintiff claimed losses including medical expenses, loss of income, and future care costs.

The court had to determine the appropriate amount of compensation for the plaintiff's economic losses, including past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, and future care costs. The plaintiff presented evidence from medical experts and financial advisors to substantiate these claims. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claims were overstated and sought a reduction in the amount awarded.

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was credible and reasonably supported the claims made. The court assessed the medical expenses and concluded that the plaintiff had incurred reasonable and necessary costs. Regarding lost income, the court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that they were unable to return to work due to their injuries and awarded compensation for the period they were unable to work. For future care costs, the court accepted the plaintiff's expert evidence regarding the necessity and cost of ongoing care, adjusting the amount slightly for inflation and other factors. The court awarded the plaintiff a total of $125,008.25 in damages for economic loss.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis, unless otherwise directed. The exhibits were to be returned, and the plaintiff was granted liberty to apply for further or other orders on seven days' notice.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $125,008.25;

2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;

3. The exhibits may be returned;

4. Liberty to apply on 7 days’ notice if further or other orders are required.

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.