Blayney Crane Services v Western Freight Management - [2004] NSWSC 879

CITATION: Blayney Crane Services v Western Freight Management [2004] NSWSC 879

HEARING DATE(S): 29 June 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 October 2004

JURISDICTION:
Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Master Harrison

DECISION: (1) The appeal is dismissed; (2) The Magistrate's orders dated 14 November 2003 are affirmed; (3) The amended summons is dismissed; (4) Costs are reserved.

CATCHWORDS: Appeal - cross appeal - Local Court - adequacy of reasons, foreseeability

LEGISLATION CITED: Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970 (NSW) - s 69(2)

CASES CITED: Allen v Kerr & Anor (1995) Aust Torts Reports 81-354
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 413
Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112
Carr v Neill [1999] NSWSC 1263
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Digitech (Australia) Ltd v Brand & Ors [2004] NSWCA 58
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Maynard v Daninett [1999] NSWCA 295
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Pettitt v Dunkley (1971) 1 NSWLR 376
R L & D Investments Pty Ltd v Bisby [2002] NSWSC 1082
Stevens v Broadribb Swmilling Company Pty Ltd [1985-1986] 160 CLR 16
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in Liq) (1999) 160 CLR 588
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

PARTIES :

Blayney Crane Services Pty Limited
(First plantiff/First cross defendant)
Nelson Phillip Scott
(Second plaintiff/Second cross defendant)
Christopher Edward Burden
(Third defendant/second cross claimant)
Western Freight Management Pty Limited
(First defendant/third cross defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 13302/2003

COUNSEL:
Mr J J Fernon SC with Mr A Fernon
(Plaintiffs)
Mr M A Barko
(First Defendant)
Mr MA Jones
Second & Third Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
Mr F Giles,
Sutherland & Tiirikainen,
Canberra
(Plaintiffs)
Ms Maria Townsend,
Gells Lawyers
(First Defendant)
Ms Rebecca Yates,
Hunt & Hunt
(Second & Third Defendants)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 3935/2002

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Magistrate Sweeney

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MASTER HARRISON

FRIDAY, 15 OCTOBER 2004
13302/2003 - BLAYNEY CRANE SERVICES PTY LIMITED

& ANOR v WESTERN FREIGHT MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED & 2 ORS

JUDGMENT (Appeal; cross appeal; Local Court

- adequacy of reasons, foreseeability)

1 MASTER: Before me is an amended summons filed 29 June 2004 and a notice of cross-appeal filed 12 January 2004. By the amended summons, the plaintiffs seek: firstly, an order setting aside orders 2, 3 and 5 made by Magistrate Sweeney on 14 November 2003; secondly, an order dismissing the first defendant’s claim against the plaintiffs; thirdly, an order dismissing the second and third defendant’s cross-claim against the plaintiffs; fourthly, an order granting leave to appeal from the decision of Magistrate Sweeney dated 14 November 2003 in the event that the court finds that grounds of appeal involve a question of mixed fact and law; fifthly, an order that the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Blayney Crane Services v Western Freight Management and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] NSWSC 879
Decision Date: 15 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Blayney Crane Services v Western Freight Management, the respondent, Blayney Crane Services, brought an action against the appellant, Western Freight Management, for recovery of damages following an incident where a crane owned by the respondent was damaged by the appellant's truck. The Local Court found in favour of the respondent and awarded damages. Both parties appealed to the District Court, and the District Court found in favour of the appellant. The respondent appealed the District Court's decision to the Court of Appeal. The appellant subsequently cross-appealed against the District Court's order for costs.
The central issue before the court was whether the District Court had correctly determined that the damage to the crane was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the appellant's negligence. The court was also required to determine whether the District Court had provided adequate reasons for its decision. The court found that the District Court had erred in its assessment of foreseeability and that the damage to the crane was indeed a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the appellant's negligence. The court also found that the District Court's reasons were inadequate, as they did not sufficiently address the foreseeability issue.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's negligence in driving the truck into the crane was a breach of duty of care. The court held that the damage to the crane was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of this breach. The court found that the District Court had failed to adequately address the foreseeability issue in its reasons and, therefore, had erred in its assessment. The court also held that the District Court's order for costs was appropriate. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the District Court for reassessment of the damages. The cross-appeal was dismissed.

Orders