Georges (formerly known as Leon Gogizkhah) v Soutter [2016] NSWDC 9

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Georges (formerly known as Leon Gogizkhah) v Soutter [2016] NSWDC 9 Hearing dates: 16 February 2016 – 18 February 2016 Date of orders: 19 February 2016 Decision date: 19 February 2016 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Elkaim SC DCJ Decision: Judgment for the plaintiff for $45,140.10 Catchwords: Personal injury, motor vehicle accident at T intersection, contributory negligence. Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 Civil Liability Act 2002 Cases Cited: Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320 Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Lenny Georges (formerly known as Leon Gogizkhah) (Plaintiff) Vitina Soutter (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: M Cleary (Plaintiff) B Wilson (Defendant)

Solicitors: Shine Lawyers (Plaintiff) Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Defendant) File Number(s): 2014/00145574

Judgment 1. On 11 August 2012 the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Edensor Park. He blames the accident on the negligence of the defendant. He has sued the defendant for damages. 2. The action is governed by the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (the "MACA"). The Civil Liability Act 2002 (the "CLA") also has a part to play in determining if there was a breach of the duty of care. 3. The plaintiff has claimed damages under the following heads: past and future economic loss, past and future medical expenses and future paid domestic assistance. The plaintiff is not entitled to non-economic loss because he does not exceed the threshold imposed by Section 131 of the MACA. 4. The defendant denies that she is negligent but says, in the alternative, that if she was negligent then so too was the plaintiff. The defendant says the plaintiff's injuries are significantly less severe and of much less consequence than he alleges. 5. The difference in approach between the parties was highlighted by the Schedules of Damages they gave me at the commencement of the hearing. The plaintiff's schedule totals $1,092,696.80 (excluding medical expenses). The defendant's schedule, also excluding medical expenses, suggests $8,253. 6. The Standard Orders made by a court when a matter is set down for hearing include a direction that a Schedule of Damages be prepared. The intent is that the court will be assisted in knowing, if only in broad terms, the respective position of the parties when the matter commences. 7. I pointed out my concerns to plaintiff's counsel and he, appropriately, produced a revised schedule, this one totalling $319,447.50.