Young v Vidler

[2023] NSWLC 7

Local Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Young v Vidler [2023] NSWLC 7

Hearing dates:

13 September 2023

Decision date:

19 September 2023

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Brender LCM

Decision:

Orders for examination made

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Subpoenas — To give evidence

Cases Cited:

Hexiva Pty Ltd v Lederer [2006] NSWSC 561

Moustache Pty Ltd v Takchi [2015] NSWSC 2077

PyojaPty Ltd v 284 Bronte Road Developments Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] NSWSC 831

Quach v Vu [2009] NSWSC 131

Stocovaz v Fung [2007] NSWCA 199

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Annette Young
Virginia Vidler

Representation:

Defendant/Applicant on Motion: Mr J Gruzman
Parties affected by Motion: Mr Parrish

File Number(s):

2023/00013315

JUDGMENT

1. This motion relates to a motor vehicle accident claim in the General Division claiming repairs of $23,323 and hire car costs of $6,376. There are defences including asserting that the amounts claimed are not fair and reasonable.

2. The defendant has issued subpoenas to the Proper Officer of DCD Smash Repairs Pty Ltd (“DCD”) and the Proper Officer of Byzantine Investments Pty Ltd t/a Crashclaim (“Crashclaim”) seeking documents in multiple categories relating to matters such as the ordering of any parts for the repair of the relevant vehicle and as to the hiring of the motor vehicle claimed in the proceedings. Nobody has moved to set aside the subpoenas. There is no dispute at present about who is the “Proper Officer” in each case.

3. The defendant is dissatisfied with production. She has sought an explanation as to why more documents haven’t been produced and has not received a satisfactory reply. Accordingly, she has moved on a motion that the Proper Officers attend court to be examined in respect of the subpoenas. Two other such motions in Small Claims matters were also argued based on similar evidence. The plaintiffs did not participate in the motions. The motions were defended by counsel for the proper officers.

Facts and Issues

4. The evidence in support of the motion includes correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant in which the plaintiff said that the main contact for the repairing of the plaintiff’s vehicle was Crashclaim, and that the vehicle was repaired by DCD employees at the DCD panel shop on a particular date. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the work recorded in the written invoice was in fact performed and took 29 days. In answer to the question of whether the parts specified in the tax invoice were purchased and paid for by DCD and installed on the vehicle as per the repair invoice, the answer was that itwas a question that should be directed to DCD. There is evidence that the two companies are third party payers under insurance arrangements.

5. This court has many claims of this type. A potential issue in many proceedings is whether the repairs referred to in a foundational “invoice”, demand before action and then in the Statement of Claim were actually made and are an “actual cost of repair”. If so,…