Bowman v Bliss Early Learning Maroubra Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bowman v Bliss Early Learning Maroubra Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 600
Hearing dates: 06 December 2024
Date of orders: 06 December 2024
Decision date: 06 December 2024
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Dicker SC DCJ
Decision:

In relation to the Notice of Motion filed on 1 November 2024:

(1) The application is dismissed.

(2) The costs of the Notice of Motion are to be costs in the cause.

In relation to the proceedings generally:

(3) The defendant is to serve any expert report as to liability by 28 February 2025.

(4) The matter is listed before the List Judge for directions on 5 March 2025 at 9:30am.

(5) Liberty to apply on 2 business days’ notice.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – child suffers strangulation asphyxia at childcare centre – whether order should be made to determine a separate question as to liability

Legislation Cited:

Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW)

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Allandale Blue Metal Pty Ltd v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWCA 103

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981] AC 1001

Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Pharmacy Depot Hurstville Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1284

Crawley v Vero Insurance Ltd [2012] NSWSC 593

New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 212 CLR 511

Southwell v Bennett [2010] NSWSC 1372

Tepko Pty Ltd v The Water Board [2001] HCA 19; (2001) 206 CLR 1

Thomas v Oakley [2003] NSWSC 1033

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Hannah Bowman (Plaintiff)
Bliss Early Learning Maroubra Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Holmes (Plaintiff)
G Devery (Solicitor)(Defendant)

Solicitors:
Gerard Malouf & Partners (Plaintiff)
Gilchrist Connell (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2021/00107955
Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT – EX TEMPORE

  1. Before the Court for determination is a Notice of Motion filed on 1 November 2024 by the plaintiff, seeking that there be an order under Part 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) to the effect that the question of the defendant’s liability for the plaintiff’s injuries be determined separately and before any further trial in the proceedings.

  2. In support of the application, the plaintiff read the affidavit of Vrege Kolokossian of 4 November 2024. The defendant read the affidavit of Grace Anne Devery dated 22 November 2024. The defendant opposed the application.

  3. It is important that I set out the background facts in the matter. A Statement of Claim was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, who commences the proceedings by her tutor, being her father Gavin Bowman, on 19 April 2021. In substance, the Statement of Claim pleads as follows:

  1. That the plaintiff was born on xx July 2018;

  2. That as a toddler, the plaintiff was enrolled in a daycare centre known as “Bliss Early Learning Maroubra” located in Maroubra in Sydney, in the State of New South Wales;

  3. That the plaintiff attended that centre on 27 November 2019;

  4. That outside the centre building, there was a play…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bowman v Bliss Early Learning Maroubra Pty Ltd 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
[2024] NSWDC 600
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bowman v Bliss Early Learning Maroubra Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Bowman, sought damages against the defendant, Bliss Early Learning Maroubra Pty Ltd, following an incident where the plaintiff's child suffered strangulation asphyxia while in the defendant's care at their childcare centre. The primary issue before the court was whether an order should be made to determine a separate question of liability, distinct from the broader question of quantum of damages. This issue was raised in the context of a Notice of Motion filed by the defendant on 1 November 2024.

The court considered the procedural aspects of the application, including the timing and appropriateness of seeking a determination on liability at that stage. The court examined the necessity and relevance of addressing liability separately from the main proceedings, particularly in light of the potential for delay and the overall efficiency of the litigation process. The court also evaluated the merits of the application in relation to the principles of judicial economy and the avoidance of piecemeal litigation.

In dismissing the application, the court held that the request to determine liability separately was not in the interest of expeditious and fair resolution of the proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining a structured and efficient litigation process, and found that the application did not meet the threshold for an order to be made at that stage. The court also directed the defendant to serve any expert reports related to liability by 28 February 2025, and scheduled directions for the broader proceedings on 5 March 2025. The court's decision reflects a careful balance between procedural fairness and the overarching goals of litigation management.

Orders

Orders of the court

In relation to the Notice of Motion filed on 1 November 2024:

(1) The application is dismissed.

(2) The costs of the Notice of Motion are to be costs in the cause.

In relation to the proceedings generally:

(3) The defendant is to serve any expert report as to liability by 28 February 2025.

(4) The matter is listed before the List Judge for directions on 5 March 2025 at 9:30am.

(5) Liberty to apply on 2 business days’ notice.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.