Lee v Strelnicks; Souaid v Nahas; Cassim v Nguyen; Rixon v Arsalan [2020] NSWCA 115

Lee v Strelnicks; Souaid v Nahas; Cassim v Nguyen; Rixon v Arsalan [2020] NSWCA 115

Where a claimant establishes a need for a replacement vehicle due to deprivation of use from a tortious act, they are entitled to recover the reasonable cost of hiring an equivalent vehicle—meaning a vehicle as similar as possible to the damaged vehicle in specification and performance—unless evidence shows that a less expensive vehicle would have met the claimant’s needs and the claimant is content with such alternatives. The onus is first on the claimant to establish need, then the defendant may establish that the hire was unreasonable. Hire costs are recoverable only to the extent that they are reasonably necessary to meet the proven need; in some cases, this is a vehicle of like...

Parties
Applicant: Seung Hyun Lee; First Respondent: Leisa Strelnicks; Second Respondent: Local Court of New South Wales; Applicant: Bilal Souaid; Respondent: Hanin Nahas; Applicant: Azad Cassim; Respondent: Dylan Nguyen; Applicant: Alex Rixon; Respondent: Ahya-Ud-Din Arsalan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Applications for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Applications determined: leave to appeal granted in part and refused in part; appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part per individual cases.
Legal Topics
Damages for Loss of Use, Non Income Producing Chattel, Mitigation of Loss, Recovery of Hire Costs, Motor Vehicle Collision, Assessment of Reasonable Expenditure
Torts Damages Civil Procedure Damages for Loss of Use Non Income Producing Chattel Mitigation of Loss Recovery of Hire Costs Motor Vehicle Collision +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 5 Authorities cited 41 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seung Hyun Lee

Applicant

Leisa Strelnicks

First Respondent

Local Court of New South Wales

Second Respondent

Bilal Souaid

Applicant

Hanin Nahas

Respondent

Azad Cassim

Applicant

Dylan Nguyen

Respondent

Alex Rixon

Applicant

Ahya-Ud-Din Arsalan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Applications for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When may a claimant who has lost use of a non-income producing vehicle recover the cost of hiring a replacement vehicle?
  2. 2 What constitutes reasonable expenditure for hiring a replacement vehicle?
  3. 3 Is the recoverable hire cost determined by similar value/prestige or by meeting the owner's actual needs?

Ratio Decidendi

Where a claimant establishes a need for a replacement vehicle due to deprivation of use from a tortious act, they are entitled to recover the reasonable cost of hiring an equivalent vehicle—meaning a vehicle as similar as possible to the damaged vehicle in specification and performance—unless evidence shows that a less expensive vehicle would have met the claimant’s needs and the claimant is content with such alternatives. The onus is first on the claimant to establish need, then the defendant may establish that the hire was unreasonable. Hire costs are recoverable only to the extent that they are reasonably necessary to meet the proven need; in some cases, this is a vehicle of like...

Court Disposition

Applications determined: leave to appeal granted in part and refused in part; appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part per individual cases.

Orders

  • Lee v Strelnicks: Leave to appeal refused; Ms Lee to pay respondent's costs.
  • Souaid v Nahas: Leave to appeal refused; Mr Souaid to pay respondent's costs.