Hoblos v Alexakis [2021] NSWCA 126

Hoblos v Alexakis [2021] NSWCA 126

The primary judge erred by conflating the credibility issues affecting Mr Hoblos's reliability as a historian with the legal requirement to assess damages where injury is established. Despite evidence of exaggeration or malingering, expert medical evidence (particularly from Dr Lim) supported a compelling inference that Mr Hoblos suffered from a major depressive episode caused by the motor vehicle accident, entitling him to damages. The task of quantifying damages, even if difficult, should be undertaken where some injury is established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal Following Appeal From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Orders of the District Court set aside. Directions for further submissions on damages, and costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.
Legal Topics
['damages' 'major Depressive Disorder' 'assessment of Damages' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'motor Vehicle Accidents' 'personal Injury' 'appellate Review' 'exaggeration/malingering' 'interaction of Liability and Damages']
['torts' 'civil Procedure'] ['damages' 'major Depressive Disorder' 'assessment of Damages' 'credibility of Witnesses' 'motor Vehicle Accidents' 'personal Injury' 'appellate Review' 'exaggeration/malingering' 'interaction of Liability and Damages']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal Following Appeal From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge conflated the tasks of determining liability and measuring damages' 'Whether evidence of exaggeration or malingering precluded an award of damages for psychiatric injury' "Appropriate approach to assessment of damages where plaintiff's reliability as historian is in doubt"]

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge erred by conflating the credibility issues affecting Mr Hoblos's reliability as a historian with the legal requirement to assess damages where injury is established. Despite evidence of exaggeration or malingering, expert medical evidence (particularly from Dr Lim) supported a compelling inference that Mr Hoblos suffered from a major depressive episode caused by the motor vehicle accident, entitling him to damages. The task of quantifying damages, even if difficult, should be undertaken where some injury is established.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Orders of the District Court set aside. Directions for further submissions on damages, and costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside the orders of the District Court of 20 December 2019.' 'Direct that within 28 days each party provide written submissions on the assessment of damages, including whether damages can be assessed by this court or should be remitted to the District Court.' 'Any submissions in reply are to...