Mouzakzak v The Nominal Defendant (No. 3) [2020] NSWDC 423

Mouzakzak v The Nominal Defendant (No. 3) [2020] NSWDC 423

The Court found that the lay evidence was unreliable or lacked independence, particularly as the plaintiff's account depended primarily on what she had been told by the driver. The Court did not consider Ms Khaled, the driver, to be a credible or reliable witness. Assessment of the physical evidence by the experts resulted in competing possibilities, but the plaintiff was unable to prove on the balance of probabilities that a collision with an unidentified vehicle occurred as alleged. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof that her injuries were caused by the negligence of an unidentified driver.

Parties
Plaintiff: Ms S Mouzakzak; Defendant: The Nominal Defendant
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment, Final Judgment After Hearing on Liability
Outcome
Judgment for the first defendant (The Nominal Defendant).
Legal Topics
Negligence, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Nominal Defendant Claims, Standard of Proof, Evidentiary Standards
Torts Motor Accident Law Negligence Motor Vehicle Accidents Nominal Defendant Claims Standard of Proof Evidentiary Standards

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms S Mouzakzak

Plaintiff

The Nominal Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment, Final Judgment After Hearing on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unidentified vehicle collided with the plaintiff's vehicle, causing it to veer off the road and collide with a tree
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the negligence of another unidentified driver

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the lay evidence was unreliable or lacked independence, particularly as the plaintiff's account depended primarily on what she had been told by the driver. The Court did not consider Ms Khaled, the driver, to be a credible or reliable witness. Assessment of the physical evidence by the experts resulted in competing possibilities, but the plaintiff was unable to prove on the balance of probabilities that a collision with an unidentified vehicle occurred as alleged. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof that her injuries were caused by the negligence of an unidentified driver.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the first defendant (The Nominal Defendant).

Orders

  • There be Verdict and Judgment for the first defendant.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant's costs.