| Coshott v Barry (NSWCA) - judicial review - bankruptcy - solicitors’ costs - joint debtors - interest on bills of costs - appeal allowed in part |
| Larsen v Grace Worldwide (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) (NSWSC) - negligence - transport of goods - bailment - defendant liable as bailee for damaged items - bulk of claims not made out - judgment for plaintiffs |
| Smith v Pennington (NSWSC) - negligence - plaintiff detained under Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) granted period on leave from hospital - plaintiff injured in attempted suicide - Health District not liable |
| Porter v Phong Le (NSWSC) - medical negligence - application for separate determination of question whether general practitioner breached duty of care dismissed |
| Hendricks v El-Dik (ACTSC) - negligence - cyclist injured in collision with motor vehicle - proposed claim against third parties - interests of justice - application to vacate 10 hearing date dismissed |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Coshott v Barry [2015] NSWCA 257
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
McColl & Emmett JJA, Brereton J
Bankruptcy - solicitors sent two bills of costs to applicant and husband, who were their former clients - District Court and Local Court issued judgments consequent upon filing of certificates of determination of costs, neither of which included amount for interest - applicant and husband sought to set aside registration of certificates on basis of husband’s bankruptcy - solicitors sought inclusion of interest and removal of husband as party - District Court judge and Local Court judge ordered husband be removed as party and that judgments be amended to include interest - consequences of bankruptcy of husband - solicitors’ entitlement to recover interest on unpaid amount of costs up to date of filing of certificates of determination - issue estoppel - competency of appeals - whether applicant’s challenges properly agitated by way of summons for judicial review - whether time for filing summons should be extended - held: in relation to bankruptcy issue, Court held that where there were joint debtors, s58 Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) did not impinge on creditor’s right to take steps against non-bankrupt debtor - the lower Courts did not have jurisdiction to give judgment for interest component - appeal allowed in part.
Coshott
|
Larsen v Grace Worldwide (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1224
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Schmidt J
Negligence - bailment - plaintiffs engaged defendant to transport furniture and household goods from Australia to Germany - plaintiffs pursued claims against defendant in contract, bailment, for negligence and intentional damage, breach Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and trespass to chattels - plaintiffs claimed someone for whom defendant was responsible tried to kill or injure them by applying substance to top of dresser - held: defendant was liable as bailee of plaintiffs possessions for items damaged either during repacking or transport, as accepted - plaintiffs’ evidence not credible or reliable - plaintiffs did not establish substance deliberately placed on top of dresser while in defendant’s custody and control or that defendant responsible for such conduct, even if it occurred - evidence did not establish substance toxic, contaminated possessions and property, or caused ill health - plaintiffs failed to establish they suffered damage for which defendant responsible, other than that conceded - no entitlement to aggravated or exemplary damages - while bulk of plaintiffs’ claims failed there must be judgment in their favour.
Larsen
|
Smith v Pennington [2015] NSWSC 1168
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Garling J
Negligence - plaintiff involuntarily detained under Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) - plaintiff granted period of leave to reside with parents - plaintiff injured when he attempted suicide while on leave - plaintiff claimed Health District responsible for negligence hospital staff which he claimed caused his injuries - held: plaintiff demonstrated breach of duty by Health District by failure of hospital and its staff to have conference with plaintiff’s parents concerning doctor’s decision to allow plaintiff to proceed on leave, so that parents could be properly informed and necessary precautions to assist plaintiff to minimise risk of suicide attempt - breach of duty did not cause plaintiff’s injuries - plaintiff’s parents did all that could be required of them to take care for plaintiff - plaintiff had determined to embark upon a course of action which led to the serious injuries - judgment for Health District.
Smith
|
Porter v Phong Le [2015] NSWSC 1218
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Simpson JA
Medical negligence - plaintiff by tutor sought order pursuant to r28.2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) that there be a separate determination of question whether defendant general practitioner breached duty of care to plaintiff prior to all other issues in proceedings - held: Court not persuaded any departure from normal course of litigation warranted - Court not persuaded determination of issue whether defendant breached duty of care could be easily or properly undertaken if separated from causation - overlap between medical experts relevant to breach and causation especially problematic - it was Court’s experience that cost involved in two hearings likely to far exceed costs involved in one - posing of separate questions by judges who were not trial judge was not adoption of flexible procedure but imposition of rigid one - application for separate determination dismissed.
Porter
|
Hendricks v El-Dik [2015] ACTSC 256
Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Mossop AsJ
Negligence - plaintiff riding an electrically powered bicycle along a path injured in collision with vehicle reversing from driveway - defendants sought to vacate a ten day scheduled hearing - defendants submitted they were entitled to bring a claim for contribution pursuant to s21 Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) - held: rule concerning object of third party proceedings ad desirability of having all issues between plaintiff, defendant and third parties decided in single set of proceedings did not apply as no third party proceedings had yet been commenced - defendants had had fair opportunity to bring claim against Commonwealth and/or Territory - resolution of case important for plaintiff due to personal stressors and because finalisation, if plaintiff successful, would enable plaintiff to enter arrangements for accommodation, treatment and care - nature of defendants’ proposed claim uncertain - significant Court resources allocated to imminent hearing date - there was potential for multiplicity of proceedings with inconsistent findings - possible prejudice to defendants did not justify substantial delay and detriment to plaintiff - not in interests of justice to vacate hearing.
Hendricks
|
