District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Nadj v Moukhallaletti [2013] NSWDC 119 Hearing dates: 30 July 2013 Decision date: 30 July 2013 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Levy SC DCJ Decision: (1)Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $121,738.63; (2)The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered; (3)Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required. Catchwords: TORTS - negligence - damage to residential property due to fire resulting from lit candles coming into contact with combustible materials; DAMAGES - assessment of damage Category: Principal judgment Parties: Vinko Nadj (Plaintiff) Richard Mimtez Moukhallaletti (Defendant) Representation: Mr B Camilleri (Plaintiff) (The defendant did not appear) Ligeti Partners (Plaintiff) (The defendant did not appear) File Number(s): 2012/391463 Publication restriction: None Judgment Facts 1The plaintiff, Mr Vinko Nadj, was the owner of property known and situated at 25-28 Crescent Street, Koorawatha, NSW. On 27 November 2010, the defendant, Mr Richard Moukhallaletti was in the plaintiff's premises when he fell asleep leaving burning candles located near combustible materials in the premises. Those materials caught fire. This caused significant damage to the premises necessitating the plaintiff to incur expenses for assessment, repairs and demolition. The fire also caused the plaintiff to suffer loss of the contents of the premises. 2The plaintiff claims that his losses were due to the negligence of the defendant. On 16 July 2013, the plaintiff obtained default judgment against the defendant. On that date the court notified the defendant that an assessment hearing of the plaintiff's claim for damages would proceed today, 30 July 2013. 3The defendant did not appear at today's hearing. The plaintiff therefore proceeded to prove his damages. He did so by relying upon an affidavit a building surveyor, Mr Alan Lindsay, sworn on 5 July 2013, and the affidavit of a loss adjuster, Mr David Harper, sworn on 21 June 2013. The plaintiff also gave oral evidence in support of his claim for damages. Consideration 4The plaintiff claims damages as follows: (a) Demolition of building and removal of asbestos $12,477.00 (b) Value of building rectification repairs $86,575.30 (c) Damaged contents $20,770.00 (d) Building assessment fee $858.50 (e) Loss adjustor's fees $1057.83 5These amounts total $121,738.63. On the basis of the affidavit evidence of Mr Harper and Mr Lindsay, I am satisfied that the above amounts represent fair and reasonable estimations of the plaintiff's losses due to the fire. 6I therefore assess the plaintiff's damages in the total sum of $121,738.63. Accordingly, the plaintiff should have a verdict and judgment in his favour in the amount of $121,738.63. 7As the plaintiff has succeeded in obtaining a judgment against the defendant, he is entitled to have his costs of the proceedings paid by the defendant on the ordinary basis unless it can be shown that some other costs order should be made, for which I grant liberty to apply should this prove necessary. 8I therefore make the following orders: (1)Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the assessed sum of $121,738.63; (2)The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered; (3)Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 30 July 2013