SABAH MANSOUR v GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL MEAGHER JA, HANDLEY JA and Cripps JA 25 March 1993 [1993] NSWCA 172 FACTS: Damages, evidence of all witnesses not believed by judge below. HELD: (per curiam) (1) The decision of the judge below not to believe the witnesses was his and his alone and was not shown to be unreasonable. Meagher JA. In this matter the appellant, who is the plaintiff, Mrs Mansour, has sued the defendant for damages for injuries she alleged she sustained in a motor vehicle accident which she says took place on 31 March 1986. There were three vital witnesses in the plaintiff's case: herself and two males. His Honour heard their evidence at some length and came to the remarkable conclusion that he could not believe a word that any of those three witnesses said. Nonetheless, by a chain of reasoning I am simply unable to follow, his Honour did come to the conclusion that a collision had taken place with the car in which the plaintiff wassitting. There is no cross-appeal and we must accept that finding. His Honour having made that finding then addressed himself to the question of damages and found that the plaintiff had not suffered any damages from the carelessness which led to the collision. His Honour saw all relevant witnesses and heard what they had to say. The decision not to believe them was his and his alone and it has not been shown to be unreasonable. Indeed, even if it were our province to decide the matter, in my view, this Court should come to the same conclusion. The testimony of each witness was riddled with internal inconsistencies. Each witness managed to contradict not only himself but every other witness and no version of the oral evidence is consistent with the documentary evidence. So at the end of the day there are unchallengeable findings which, despite the earnest argument of Mr McQuillen for the appellant, cannot really be challenged, that there is no evidence of damage. For these reasons, in my view, the appeal should be dismissed with costs. Handley JA. I agree. Cripps JA. I agree. Meagher JA. The order of the Court therefore will be that the appeal will be dismissed with costs. (1) Appeal dismissed with costs Counsel for the appellant: A J McQuillen Solicitors for the appellant: Leslie E Abboud 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS Counsel for the respondent: C Charteris Solicitors for the respondent: Solicitor for GIO