1. Angelo Papagelou (the claimant) is a 55-year-old man who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 15 August 2022. He was the driver of a car which was struck, on the driver's side, by the insured vehicle as the insured driver was making a right-hand turn into a driveway.
2. The insurer admitted breach of duty of care on the part of its insured with no allegation of contributory negligence.
3. The parties have agreed that the claimant's injuries are non-threshold injuries and that his injuries exceed 10% whole person impairment (WPI). Accordingly, the matters requiring assessment are the claimant's economic loss and non-economic loss. The parties have agreed that allowance ought to be made for tax paid on the payments to the claimant (Fox v Wood) of $53,819.
4. The insurer submitted that the claimant ought not be accepted in respect to his allegations of loss as there are matters which cast significant doubt on his credibility and veracity of his contentions of economic loss consequent on his post-accident disabilities.
5. The parties also had differing submissions in respect to the medical material, and more relevantly the prognosis of the claim. This will, affect the assessment of both the claimant's impaired earning capacity to date and his future earning capacity or, as relevantly, his residual earning capacity. Accordingly, this is appropriate to deal with these matters at first instance given the effect that they have on both the assessment of non-economic loss and economic loss.

1. The claimant sustained injuries on 15 August 2022 when the insured vehicle made a right hand turn across the path of the claimant's vehicle thereby causing a collision. The claimant sustained injuries to his cervical and lumbar spine, his shoulders, right hip and right leg.
2. The claimant was taken to Westmead Hospital and discharged the following day. Following the accident, he had significant and ongoing problems with his cervical spine which ultimately led to him undergoing a cervical discectomy and fusion between his fourth and seventh cervical vertebrae on 15 May 2023. The insurer's submissions note that the accident being the cause of the need for the fusion had the consequence of the insurer conceding that the claimant is entitled to damages for non-economic loss.
3. The claimant is still troubled by the injury to his cervical spine. The report of Dr Homes dated 9 August 2024 identifies the claimant's complaints and disabilities being neck pain, associated cervicogenic headache and right hip pain. Of these injuries, Dr Homes suggests that it is only the neck injury which has its origin in the motor vehicle accident.
4. The report of Dr Bentivoglio dated 31 March 2023 states that the claimant is going to need to have a fusion because of the motor vehicle accident. He stated:

"I do believe that the surgery at the C4/5, C5/6 and C6/7 level as recommended by

Dr Kam is reasonably necessary and related to an exacerbation of pre-existing degenerative disease, which was previously asymptomatic, the exacerbation being caused by the accident."

1. Whilst the degree of impairment, consequent on the claimant's physical injuries is in dispute between the parties what is not in dispute is that as a consequence of the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident, the claimant has significant physical restrictions in undertaking his day-to-day activities.
2. In my view what is more debilitating for the claimant is the psychological sequalae of the accident. The report of Dr Rastogi dated 30 October 2024 outlines some of the psychological problems which the claimant suffers from. He makes a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder with arousal, hypervigilance, being triggered on the road, fear and avoidance behaviours with driving, poor emotional regulation and loss of confidence. The effect of these is quite significant. He states:

"His sleep is poor, and he has fatigue and low motivation. He has marked anhedonia. He gets angry and irritable and displays poor stress coping and has lost patience. He avoids confrontation and conflict. Has stopped contact sports due to fear of injury. He avoids social networks and large crowds as he gets startled and overstimulated."

1. Whilst it is clear that the claimant suffers significant and debilitating physical and psychological impairment the medical material does not suggest that there is no possibility of improvement.
2. As I have outlined above the claimant is troubled significantly by his cervical spinal injury but it does not prevent him from undertaking lighter tasks or working in a sedentary occupation. The report of Professor Bright dated 2 May 2025, suggesting the claimant was both

self-limiting and not an entirely reliable historian, does identify a capacity for work and noting the claimant has significant transferable skills derived from many years working in the hospitality industry, mainly in managerial and ownership roles. He noted the report of the claimant's treating psychologist, Nick Cherrie dated 28 September 2023, which states:

"It is my understanding that Angelo has shown some improvement with his driving, but he is still experiencing symptoms of anxiety and depression around his physical recovery."

"Angelo's capacity to return to work is largely dependent upon his physical recovery, which is outside my scope of practice to provide a prognosis for. However, it is my intention to assist Angelo with his mental health recovery in the meantime."

1. The claimant is 55 years old I do not accept that the condition, both physical and psychological, is of such severity as to prevent him from undertaking any gainful type of employment. I do not accept that the medical material is of such nature as to suggest significant improvement is not possible. Indeed in, in my view, the medical material supports the insurer's contention that there is scope for significant further improvement in the claimant's physical and psychological condition.

1. The insurer admitted that the claimant will not be accepted in his contentions of either injury or consequential loss. That is that there are significant issues relating to the credibility of the claimant particularly in so far as they relate to his assertions of his pre-injury earnings, his actual losses or the veracity of his assertion of ongoing loss.
2. The insurer identified that the claimant had stated that from 24 August 2022, he was working only 20 hours per week.

1. The claimant continued to work 38 hours per week notwithstanding that he was receiving payments as though he was only working 20 hours per week. The overpayment was continued between 26 October 2022 until May 2023, about the time of the claimant's surgery, when the claimant's hours were identified as 20 hours per week but his hourly rate was doubled so that he continued to be paid his full wage as well as weekly compensation from the insurer.
2. Whilst the claimant admits that he was unaware of this overpayment as his pay went straight into a mortgage offset account and he was not responsible for the payroll, the statement given by the claimant's business partner contradicted this assertion.
3. At the assessment conference, George Georgaklis stated that this payroll was indeed the claimant's responsibility. In answer to a question, he confirmed that the claimant was doing the pays before and after the motor vehicle accident. He stated that the claimant compiled the business activity statement, collated the material and figures required for accounting purposes and that he was setting the wages.
4. I do not accept the claimant's contention that he was unaware that he was being overpaid during this period. I do not accept that he never checked his account to see how much was going into it. I do not accept his answer at the assessment conference indicating that he was not responsible for the preparation of the business activity statement. I do not accept his assertion that he didn't need to know wages. At the assessment conference, the claimant conceded that payslips have been emailed to the insurer and that the claimant knew that he was being paid. This is contrary to his assertion in his statement dated 7 August 2025 in which he stated that he did not receive payslips from work, he stated position that:

"The accounting software picked up and paid my pre-agreed superannuation; it needed to reflect the previous wage."

1. I accept the insurance submission that the claimant was seeking to avoid any responsibility for the overpayment. I accept the insurance submission The claimant lacks credibility in respect to his assertions of loss of earnings consequence on the motor vehicle accident.
2. The insurer raised the property acquisition and development application which the claimant is involved with on the New South Wales South Coast. The claimant also has asserted that he had very limited input in respect to the proposal surrounding the land owned at Sanctuary Point. This is notwithstanding that the claimant was integral in the purchase of the land and was an investor with his wife in that land. He stated that it was an investment about which he knew little and that: "The town planner does everything".
3. This was also refused by Mr Georgie Georgaklis. He stated that the investment at Paradise Road was one third owned by the claimant. The claimant is involved in the redesigning of it. That he met with the town planner and was integral to the process. That he was participating in a rational and sensible way in respect to the proposal to develop the land into townhouses.
4. These would be a limited significant other than the fact that it was involvement which the claimant had originally denied although the material and the witnesses to support the insurer's contention that this was an attempt by the claimant to downplay his involvement what is planned to be a significant property development to bring profits to all concerned.
5. The insurer submitted that significant doubt is cast on the claimant's credibility. I accept this submission. This, in turn, will affect the manner in which the remaining heads of damage are assessed.
6. In his statement dated 27 June 2024 the claimant stated:

"My wife and I had planned on buying more property to renovate and sell, however since the accident this is no longer possible as she has to be the burden of supporting me."

1. As was outlined at the assessment conference the claimant has invested in property for development following the accident. The cafe which employed the claimant was purchased in 2017 for $390,000 and sold in 2023 for $1.6 million. The claimant has been investing in the land at Sanctuary Point to facilitate its rezoning and allow development by the building of apartments. The claimant agreed that payments had been made for this purpose in August 2023 and March 2024. These business and development opportunities being undertaken by the claimant, since the motor vehicle accident, contradict his assertion in his statement that this is no longer possible.

1. The claimant submitted that an allowance for non-economic loss would be made in the sum of $475,000 submitted an appropriate economic cost with 300,000.
2. Taking into account both the physical and psychological impacts of the accident, together with the significant impairment for the climate to enjoy pre-accident social sporting domestic and recreational activities together with the Davies associated with the breakdown of relationships consequence on the psychological injury he sustained. I assess non-economic loss in the sum of $350,000.

1. The claimant submitted that past economic loss would be allowed, as a buffer, in the amount of $225,000.
2. The insurer's original submissions were that the past economic loss would be allowed in the sum of $45,446.
3. The insurer provided updated documents noting that total weekly benefits paid by EML (the workers compensation insurer) to either the claimant or his employer come to $228,242.66 which includes $39,076 of taxation payments made. The CTP insurer, AAI limited t/as AAMI, has paid $77,049.63 by way of payments for loss of pre-accident weekly earnings.
4. The calculation of past economic loss falls into a number of periods and subject to a number of factors.
5. Firstly, from the date of the accident until about May 2023 the claimant worked reduced hours however did not suffer any wage loss during this period because he was in receipt of payment from the insurer.
6. Secondly, in the period of 15 May 2023 to about 23 June 2024 the claimant worked further reduced hours noting that he underwent spinal surgery in May 2023 and further noting that the cafe which the claimant operated was sold in about 23 June 2024.
7. Thirdly, and there is the period from 23 June 2024 to date where the claimant states that he has not been able to work.
8. As I have outlined above there is considerable uncertainty in respect to the precise loss sustained by the claimant. In this regard I consider it appropriate to provide for a buffer in respect to the claimant's past economic loss loosely based on a calculation of wage loss of in the order of $900 per week from the time of the accident to the time of the sale of the cafe, and thereafter a loss of in the order of $1,200 per week. This is reflective of, for the first period, and an impairment on earning capacity of roughly 50% on his pre-accident capacities and, since the sale of the business, a loss of earnings and earning capacity loosely based on about a two thirds loss of his pre-accident earnings and earning capacity. Whilst the claimant was, essentially, self-employed he was receiving some superannuation payments from the entity which paid his salary. This gives rise to a further loss of employee superannuation contributions which, in my view, would be allowed in the calculation for past economic loss.
9. I assess the claimant's past economic loss in the sum of $200,000.

1. The claimant submitted the future economic loss being allowed in the amount of $1,154,000 being a loss of $2,500 net per week for the remainder of the claimant's working life less 15% for vicissitudes. The insurer submitted that an allowance would be made of loss of expected earnings of $1,800 for 12 months and thereafter a loss of $450 per week for 11 years. This would give rise to a future economic loss calculation of about $290,000.
2. As I outlined above, I do consider that the claimant does have a significant loss of capacity, particularly in respect to his ability to perform physical tasks. He is also significantly troubled by ongoing psychological difficulties. As I have outlined in the synopsis of the medical material these are conditions which may improve with the passing of time. Further I know the claimant is undertaking and pursuing business opportunities which will result in significant profit to him. Should they come to fruition in this regard I consider it appropriate to provide a buffer for future economic loss.
3. I note the claimant's pre-accident earnings of in excess of $1,800 per week, I consider it appropriate to allow a buffer loosely based on a net loss of earnings of in the order of $1,200 per week. This is a loss reflective of an impaired earning capacity of between 50 and 75%. By making an allowance for the remainder of the claimant's working life, had he not been injured in the subject motor vehicle accident, and factor in for vicissitudes being offset by an allowance for loss of employer superannuation contributions, this gives rise to a figure of, in the order of, $550,000.
4. I assess the claimant's future economic loss, including loss of superannuation benefits, in the sum of $550,000.
5. I note that the workers compensation insurer has paid $228,422.66 weekly compensation payments for which the insurer seeks an allowance for reimbursement of the sum. I further note the insurer has paid $305,472.29 for which it seeks credit. The insurer is to have a credit in the total amount of $305,472.29 in respect to compensation for past loss of wages paid or payable. This amount includes any amount owing in respect to taxation payments made on the money paid to the claimant (Fox v Wood).

1. I assess the quantification of this claim in the amount of $1,100,000. I note the insurer is to have credit of $305,472.29.
2. I assess the claimant's costs in the amount of $40,825.40. I attach the damages and cost calculator.