Hoblos v Alexakis (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 11

Hoblos v Alexakis (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 11

The Court of Appeal should itself assess damages, as this would avoid the disproportionate cost and inconvenience of a retrial, and the quantification of damages predominantly turns on undisputed expert medical evidence. Credit findings made by the primary judge must be fully respected and inform the assessment, but do not prevent the Court making findings as to residual earning capacity and quantum. Applying the relevant statutory and common law principles, the appellant is entitled to damages calculated by reference to generally agreed pre-accident earning rates, periods of incapacity or partial capacity as reflected in the evidence and findings, and reasonable past and future treatment...

Parties
Appellant: Khaled Hoblos; Insurer: Nick Alexakis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Consequential Orders After Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for appellant
Legal Topics
Damages, Assessment of Damages, Personal Injury, Motor Vehicle Accident, Credit of Witness, Expert Medical Evidence, Proportionality, Appellate Procedure
Torts Damages Assessment of Damages Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Accident Credit of Witness Expert Medical Evidence Proportionality +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khaled Hoblos

Appellant

Nick Alexakis

Insurer

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Consequential Orders After Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages should be assessed by the Court of Appeal or remitted to the District Court
  2. 2 How damages for past and future economic loss should be assessed given adverse credit findings against the plaintiff
  3. 3 Application of statutory provisions to assessment of damages in motor accident claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal should itself assess damages, as this would avoid the disproportionate cost and inconvenience of a retrial, and the quantification of damages predominantly turns on undisputed expert medical evidence. Credit findings made by the primary judge must be fully respected and inform the assessment, but do not prevent the Court making findings as to residual earning capacity and quantum. Applying the relevant statutory and common law principles, the appellant is entitled to damages calculated by reference to generally agreed pre-accident earning rates, periods of incapacity or partial capacity as reflected in the evidence and findings, and reasonable past and future treatment...

Court Disposition

Judgment for appellant

Orders

  • Judgment for the appellant in the sum of $593,157.76.
  • Failing agreement as to costs, the parties to provide written submissions as to costs within 7 days for determination on the papers.