Matar v Jones [2011] NSWCA 304

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Matar v Jones [2011] NSWCA 304 Hearing dates: 31 August 2011 Decision date: 22 September 2011 Before: Beazley JA at [1] Giles JA at [2] Macfarlan JA at [3] Decision: (1) Appeal allowed in part. (2) Direct the parties, if they are able to agree as to the amount of damages recalculated in accordance with this judgment, to lodge with the Court within seven days of the date of this judgment a form of consent order to be made by the Court in chambers. (3) Direct that if the parties are unable to agree as to that matter: (a) within seven days of the date of this judgment the appellant lodge with the Court a submission identifying the orders that he contends should be made to give effect to this judgment, together with submissions in support of that contention; (b) within seven days thereafter the respondent lodge a reply; (c) within a further seven days the appellant lodge any submission in reply to that of the respondent. (4) Order the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. (5) Direct the Registrar of the Court to refer this judgment to the Commissioner of Taxation for consideration. (6) The respondent to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951, if qualified. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: DAMAGES - motor vehicle accident - claim for past loss of earnings and future lost earning capacity - prior to accident plaintiff earned income as a self-employed taxi driver and by leasing out a second taxi plate that he owned - whether primary judge erred in finding that plaintiff's pre-injury earnings as disclosed in his tax returns included income from both taxi driving and lease payments - whether fact that plaintiff did not disclose lease payments for income tax purposes precluded him from recovering damages in respect of what he truly earned as distinct from what he disclosed - Registrar directed to refer judgment to Commissioner of Taxation for consideration.