Legal Research
Cases
Yehia v Williams

Yehia v Williams

Case [2022] VSC 197 22 April 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2020 03501

HASAN YEHIA	Appellant
v
ANDREW WILLIAMS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Tsalamandris J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 & 17 March 2022
LAST WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED:	24 March 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 April 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Yehia v Williams
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 197

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEAL – Administrative law – Appeal from decision of magistrate – Procedural fairness – Whether magistrate erred in calculation of measure of damages – Whether magistrate erred in assessment of costs – Arsalan v Rixon, Nguyen v Cassim (2021) 395 ALR 390 – Section 109(1) Magistrates’ Court Act1989.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Peter Cawthorn QC with Trevor McLean	John Curtain & Associates Pty Ltd
For the Respondent	Francis Tiernan QC with Shaun Ryan	William Roberts Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Preliminary

On 17 September 2019, Mr Yehia was driving his vehicle when it was struck by Mr Williams’ vehicle (‘the collision’). Thereafter, Mr Williams admitted liability for the collision but in Magistrates’ Court proceedings disputed the damages claimed by Mr Yehia. That case proceeded to trial over several days in July 2020 and judgment was delivered in August 2020.

The Magistrate made adverse findings in respect of Mr Yehia’s credit and awarded costs in the sum of $24, 842.11 for repair of the vehicle (as opposed to replacement of the vehicle), $345.20 for loss of use of the vehicle, $440 for Assessors Costs and $605 for towing and storing. The Magistrate refused Mr Yehia’s claim for ten months of car hire and did not order any interest on the damages. The Magistrate also ordered that Mr Yehia pay Mr Williams’ costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis.

Mr Yehia now seeks to appeal the Magistrate’s decision and alleges numerous errors of law in the Magistrate’s judgment: that he was denied procedural fairness; that the Magistrate erred in his calculation of the measure of damages to be awarded; that he was entitled to the costs of car hire for a period of ten months; and that he was also entitled to interest on the judgment sum and costs of the proceedings.

Since this appeal was lodged, the High Court in a decision of Arsalan v Rixon, Nguyen v Cassim (‘Arsalan’)[1] held that a plaintiff will usually be able to recover reasonable costs incurred in hiring a substitute vehicle from a negligent defendant, and in so holding, rejected the concept of ‘need’ associated with such car hire. An issue between the parties in the present case is whether the principles enunciated in Arslan apply in this appeal.
[1] (2021) 395 ALR 390 (‘Arsalan’).

For the following reasons, I have determined this appeal on the state of the law as it was at the time of the trial and therefore, Arsalan does not apply. Further, I am not persuaded that…

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 Yehia v Williams

Details

AGLC: Yehia v Williams [2022] VSC 197
Case: [2022] VSC 197
Decision Date: 22 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Yehia v Williams, the appellant, Yehia, brought an appeal against the respondent, Williams, before the court to challenge the decision made by the magistrate regarding the measure of damages and the assessment of costs. The case arose from a dispute where the magistrate had awarded damages to the appellant but had also made a ruling on costs. Yehia contended that the magistrate had made errors in both the calculation of the damages and the assessment of the costs, which he believed to be procedurally unfair and legally incorrect.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate erred in the calculation of the measure of damages and whether the magistrate erred in the assessment of costs. The appellant argued that the magistrate had failed to apply the correct legal principles in determining the damages and had made errors in the assessment of costs, which undermined the fairness of the proceedings. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the magistrate's decisions were correct and that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any errors that warranted a review.

The court, in reviewing the magistrate's decisions, found that the magistrate had indeed erred in the calculation of the measure of damages. The court held that the magistrate had applied an incorrect legal test in assessing the damages, which resulted in an underestimation of the compensation owed. Additionally, the court found that the magistrate had made an error in the assessment of costs by not properly considering all relevant factors, leading to a decision that was not fair and reasonable. The court relied on previous cases such as Arsalan v Rixon and Nguyen v Cassim to support its findings. Ultimately, the court quashed the magistrate's decision and remitted the matter back to the magistrate for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.

Orders