UNAL CELIK v IBRAHIM DALLIAGLIOGLU SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL CLARKE JA, MEAGHER JA and HANDLEY JA 2 November 1993 [1993] NSWCA 53 FACTS Appeal on the alleged inadequacy of damages awarded to a plaintiff who had been involved in four motor vehicle accidents. Proceedings were complicated by the fact that the appellant had suffered similar but unrelated injuries at work, and also because the plaintiff's schizophrenia rendered his testimony unreliable. HELD: No question of principle, and no error in the judgment of his Honour. Meagher JA. In this case the plaintiff appeals against the inadequacy of verdicts given in his favour by Associate Judge Cramer-Roberts on 19 September 1990. The plaintiff was born in Turkey, and migrated to this country in 1972 after a period of working in Germany. His experiences in this country have not been entirely happy. He worked at Port Kembla Steelworks and suffered a work injury on 5 September 1972. He, at a later stage, worked at Ralph Symonds and suffered a work injury on 3 April 1975 and one on a date which seems to be unknown. Since the Ralph Symonds work injuries he has not worked. Also, at about this stage, there was born to him a son who turned out to be a spastic which must have caused stress for him. I mention this by way of background. It is not directly relevant, but it is indirectly relevant to the cause of action now in question. The plaintiff sued, not in respect of any of the work injuries, but in respect of the motor car accidents — four in number — the first on 11 July 1976, the second on 3 January 1985, the third on 9 January 1987 and the fourth on 19 January 1987. As far as the first motor accident was concerned his Honour allowed the sum of $6,000.00 for general damages, interest of $6,802.00 and out-of-pocket expenses of $523.00, giving a total of $13,325.00. This is claimed to be inadequate. In order, I think, to appreciate how his Honour's logic led him to this conclusion one must appreciate three factors very carefully and they are common, I think, to all of the motor vehicle accidents. The first is that his Honour found the plaintiff a thoroughly unreliable witness. He simply did not believe him. He said he exaggerated, and exaggerated in no mean manner. The second is that, at least from the date of the fist accident and probably before then, the plaintiff was a chronic schizophrenic. His mental health always seems to have been fragile. It probably turned into chronic schiziphrenia after one of the Ralph Symonds accidents. Every subsequent motor car accident probably gave it an extra fillip, but it does not make the task of appreciating what injury he suffered any easier. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS The third thing to remember is he suffered, at some stage, a bad back. His Honour found, on the evidence, that this was not caused by any of the motorvehicle accidents but was probably caused by one of the accidents at Ralph Symonds. This is doubly unfortunate, however correct it be, because a worker's compenstion claim for the back was dismissed, in effect, on the grounds that the complaint did not exist. That may be sufficient reason for the plaintiff to make a subsequent application for review of the workers compensation decision, but it does not mean that this Court can pretend that the back condition is due to an unrelated motor vehicle accident. As far as the first motor vehicle accident was concerned, his Honour held that there was no back injury, but that there were two things. There was injury to his neck and shoulders that was not terribly serious and, by December 1980, had entirely vanished. There was also an aggravation of his underlying psychiatric condition. That being the totality of the plaintiff's injuries I do not see how it can be said that the figure of $13,325.00, is in error. As far as the second motor vehicle accident was concerned, that was an even slighter one. General damages were awarded in the sum of $3,000.00, out-of-pocket expenses $548.00, giving a total verdict of $3,548.00. The plaintiff's injuries in this regard were so slight that, although his general practitioner referred him to a specialist, he did not bother to keep the consultation. His Honour held, by February 1986, no more problems existed which arose out of that accident. I do not see how his Honour can have been said to have fallen into error as regards the second accident. As far as the third accident is concerned his Honour gave a verdict of $3,055.00 being general damages $3,000.00 and out-of-pocket expenses $55.00. There is no complaint about his Honour's verdict in that case. For his fourth accident his Honour gave an award of $6,775.68 being damges $4,000.00 and out-of-pocket expenses $2,775.68. His Honour said, after considering the evidence relevant to that accident, that there had been a temporary flare-up of the plaintiff's symptoms, which soon subsided. His overall view was that the plaintiff's complaints about that accident were not very severe. There was ample evidence to support his Honour's findings on both points. That being so, there can, in my view, be no suggestion his Honour was in error. In these circumstances I regret to say, in my view, the appeal should be dismissed with costs. Clarke JA. I agree. Handley JA. I agree. Clarke JA. The order of the Court will be that the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. Counsel for the appellant: V HUGHSTON Solicitors for the appellant: PHILLIP SAUL Counsel for the respondent: G PETTY Solicitors for the respondent: G M MEADOWS