What happened
Three vehicles collided on a downhill road in Drummoyne in 2010 after Mr Bugeja entered from a carpark exit. Ms Jarrett said his sudden entry forced her and the intervening driver to brake. The intervening driver said he had already stopped before Ms Jarrett struck him from behind and pushed his car forward.
The issues
The issues were the reliability of the competing accounts, whether the entry manoeuvre caused the collision, and the rear driver's lookout and following distance. Quantum was agreed during trial, leaving liability and contributory negligence for determination.
The court's decision
The trial largely accepted Ms Jarrett's account, found the defendants liable and assessed her contributory negligence at 15%. In Bugeja v Jarrett [2017] NSWCA 219, the Court held that inconsistencies in her account and unchallenged parts of the intervening driver's evidence had not been properly evaluated. It replaced the trial judgment with judgment for the defendants and ordered Ms Jarrett to pay trial and appeal costs.
Understanding the figures
The trial reduced agreed historical damages of AUD $725,000 by 15% and entered judgment for $616,250. That judgment was set aside in full on appeal; $616,250 is not a surviving damages award.
What this case shows
A witness may be honest but mistaken. Findings about reliability based on the evidence itself can be reviewed on appeal, and here the sequence of impacts materially changed the liability analysis.
Why another case may differ
The case concerns a 2010 accident governed by the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 and the Civil Liability Act 2002 as applied at the time, not a later motor accident scheme. The displaced trial apportionment and award must not be treated as surviving outcomes. The appeal's alternative apportionment discussion was not an award.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →