NSW Caselaw
District Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Cupac v Cannone [2014] NSWDC 16 Hearing dates: 17/03/14 - 19/03/14 Decision date: 21 March 2014 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Elkaim SC DCJ Decision: Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $266,361.82 Catchwords: Assessment of damages Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 Cases Cited: Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bore Cupac (Plaintiff) Robert Cannone (Defendant) Representation: P Frame (Plaintiff) J Guihot (Defendant) NSW Compensation Lawyers (Plaintiff) Moray & Agnew (Defendant) File Number(s): 2011/00018240 Publication restriction: No
Judgment 1The plaintiff was born in 1966. He is now 47 years of age. On 13 February 2007 he was involved in a motor vehicle accident. He was a passenger in a vehicle which struck the defendant's vehicle. 2The plaintiff alleges that he was injured in the accident and that the injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant. The defendant has admitted that he was negligent. He has not admitted that any of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff were caused by his negligence. 3The matter is governed by the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (the "MACA"). The plaintiff has claimed damages under the following heads: past and future medical expenses, past and future economic loss (including lost superannuation benefits) and future commercial care. The plaintiff is not entitled to non-economic loss because he has not exceeded the threshold set by Section 131 of the MACA. 4The plaintiff's case is that the injuries he suffered in the motor accident have continued to affect him to the present time and will do so well into the future. He said there has been very little improvement to any of his injuries since the accident. 5The defendant's case was that the plaintiff's damages are very limited and restricted to a closed period after the accident, certainly not extending beyond 2007. The defendant's approach was that the plaintiff had exaggerated and also been somewhat devious, for example seeking out a general practitioner who would be more lenient in providing off work certificates.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate