YUCEL v GIO SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL MEAGHER and COLE JJA 29 March 1995, 29 March 1995 [1995] NSWCA 533 Damages — No question of principle. Cole JA This is an appeal from a decision of O'Reilly DCJ, delivered 6 May 1991. It relates to a claim by the appellant, Hilmi Yucel, for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident, in which he was involved on 14 March 1986. The only question before this Court is whether or not the assessment of damages made by the judge is appellably wrong. The learned trial judge did not accept the appellant as a witness of good credit. There were abundant grounds upon which that was an available finding for the trial judge to make. In those circumstances, unless some empirical incontrovertible fact can be pointed to, the task which an appellant faces in seeking to overrule those findings is an extremely difficult one. (See Devries and Anor v Australian National Railways Commission and Anor!). The trial judge awarded the appellant general damages in the sum of $3,000, out of pocket expenses, which were agreed in the sum of $2,391, and loss of past earning capacity in the sum of $1,715. The latter sum was 50 per cent of the agreed comparable rate for a period of three months from 14 March 1986, the date of the accident, to 18 June 19986. His Honour held that within that three month period the entire effects of any injuries which the appellant may have suffered in the motor vehicle accident had resolved., In addition, there was an interest figure of $1,092, making a total verdict in the sum of $8,198. The counsel for the appellant, Mr Elliott, has skilfully put all that could properly be said in relation to this appeal. The trial judge accepted the accuracy of a hospital note, which recorded that after the accident the appellant went to the hospital and made a complaint of pain to the back and neck. His Honour had also found partial incapacity for work for the three month period I referred to. The only question is, it being clear that there is no basis for disturbing the trial judge's finding that the effects of the accident had resolved by 18 June 1986, whether the sum of $3,000 for general damages is so low that this Court should disturb it. The question thus is whether $3,000 is an inappropriately low figure for minimal injury suffered by the appellant to his back and neck for a closed period of some three months. In my view, it is clear that the figure so awarded is well within the available range which was open to his Honour on the evidence. In those circumstances, in my opinion, the appeal should be dismissed with costs. Meagher JA I agree. The order of the Court will be the order proposed by Cole JA. 1. (1993) 177 CLR 473 at 479 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS Appeal dismissed with costs. Counsel for the Appellant: D Elliott Instructed by: A Malouf and Co Counsel for the Respondent: C Charteris Instructed by: GM Meadows