KELLIE GAYLE REID v SUSAN SKEPEVSKA [1993] NSWCA 230

KELLIE GAYLE REID vy SUSAN SKEPEVSKA SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

MEAGHER JA, HANDLEY JA and Cripps JA 22 March 1993

[1993] NSWCA 230

FACTS: Appellent/plaintiff accident 10 April 1982. Verdict Court below $24,285.00 challenged.

HELD: (per curiam)

(1) Appeal dismissed

Meagher JA. In the present case the appellant, who was the plaintiff below, sued in respect of an accident which took place on 10 April 1982. It was heard by his Honour Cowdroy AJ, who gave the plaintiff a verdict of $24,285.00. That sum was made of general damages of $20,000.00, interest thereon of $14,450.00 and a subtraction of $10,065.00 therefrom being the balance previously paid by the defendant. This verdict is challenged.

In my view, the challenge is unsuccessful. The basic point about the challenge, one way or another, although a vast number of grounds were taken, is whether or not the plaintiff in the accident caused damage to her lower back.

The relevant dates are these: the accident took place on 19 April 1982, a second accident took place, which involved falling off a motor bike, on 23 May1982; and a complaint was made to Dr Pouranik, the plaintiffs general practitioner, on 21 September 1982. His Honour's basic line or argument was as follows: the plaintiff alleged an injury to the lower back from the accident on 10 April 1982. However, there seemed to be no pain to the lower back on that occasion, or immediately thereafter. In fact, there was no evidence of complaint of pain until September. On the medical evidence this would be unusual. Although it was possible for such a thing to take place, it was unusual. One would normally expect some pain to take place, probably at or about the time of the accident, or alternatively, either continuously or intermittently in between. The medical evidence shows that there is something odd in the plaintiff's evidence that this did not take place. One may add this factor makes life more complicated, in that the plaintiff's evidence as to when it manifested, even from the transcript, is extremely unsatisfactory. On many occasions the plaintiff contradicts herself, and more than once. Even when the plaintiff does give one version of a particular event, that version often has internal inconsistencies. In addition, the plaintiff manifestly continually gave non-responsive answers. His Honour came to the conclusion on general principles that he did not believe the plaintiff and based that partly on demeanour and partly on the content of what she said. In my view, there is no possibility of challenging his Honour's general finding in this regard.