MAKIS v MIJATOVIC [1995] NSWCA 266

MAKIS v MIJATOVIC

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CLARKE, MEAGHER JJA and GILES AJA 5 July 1995, 5 July 1995

[1995] NSWCA 266

DAMAGES — APPEAL FROM DAMAGES AWARD UNDER MOTOR ACCIDENTS ACT — ALL COMPONENTS CHALLENGED — APPORTIONMENT BETWEEN EFFECTS OF TWO MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS AND ASSAULTS CHALLENGED EXERCISE OF TRIAL JUDGE'S DISCRETION TO ADMIT DOCTOR'S REPORT IN THE DOCTOR'S ABSENCE — HOUSE vy THE KING ((1936) 55 CLR 499) CONSIDERED — NO ERROR SHOWN.

Clarke JA This is an appeal from a judgment of Judge Garling given on 15th March 1995 concerning two claims made by the respondent.

In the first claim the respondent sought damages for injuries, and the consequences of those injuries, which he received in a motor vehicle accident on 26 January 1985.

In the second claim he sought damages in respect of the injuries and consequences of another motor vehicle accident suffered on 19 January 1990. Both claims were heard together.

The assessment of damages was highly complex because there was a blending of the consequences from the first accident in those of the second accident. I may not have expressed that very clearly. What I am seeking to convey is that in the first accident his injuries were to the back, neck and left shoulder and, as well, he suffered from some psychological depression. In the second accident he suffered an aggravation to the original back injury and neck injury and sustained a further injury to his right shoulder. He also suffered depression as a consequence of the second accident. The difficulty that the judge faced was endeavouring to determine what were the consequences of each of the accidents and that task was further complicated by the fact that the respondent had been assaulted on two occasions whilst working as a taxi driver.

The first assault occurred between the two motor vehicle accidents and that was on 22 May 1989 and the second and more serious one occurred on 26 October 1992. There were even greater complexities introduced because the damages to be awarded in respect of the later motor vehicle accident were governed by the provisions of the Motor Accidents Act, whereas the earlier set of damages were not.