FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Butorac v WIN Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1503
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – summary judgment – discretion whether to rule at once – unless discretion exercised, notice of motion to be determined on the basis of pleadings and evidence before the Court – proceedings to be struck out in part.
CONTRACT – intention of the parties to be identified objectively – the terms of a contract not to be construed by reference to the subjective understandings or intentions of a party – alleged incorporation of terms – need for mutual intention – implied terms not to contradict express terms – estoppel – necessity to identify facts from which an estoppel might arise.
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 31A
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 52, 53BFederal Court Rules O 11 r 2(a), O 11 r 16
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266
Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2)Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
Kowalski v MMAL Staff Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd (2009) 178 FCR 401
Luck v University of Southern Queensland (2009) 176 FCR 268
Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451
Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martins Investments Pty Ltd (1979) 144 CLR 596
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165
White Industries Aust Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2007) 160 FCR 298DAVID BUTORAC v WIN CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 000 737 404) and BRUCE GORDON
NSD 1119 of 2009
BUCHANAN J
15 DECEMBER 2009
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1119 of 2009
BETWEEN: DAVID BUTORAC
ApplicantAND: WIN CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 000 737 404)
First RespondentBRUCE GORDON
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BUCHANAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
15 DECEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The matter is adjourned for further directions to 9:30am on 5 February 2010, or such other time as may be arranged with my Associate.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1119 of 2009
BETWEEN: DAVID BUTORAC
ApplicantAND: WIN CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 000 737 404)
First RespondentBRUCE GORDON
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BUCHANAN J
DATE:
15 DECEMBER 2009
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BUCHANAN J:
The respondents to these proceedings, which were commenced by application and statement of claim filed on 2 October 2009, have filed a motion seeking to strike out part of the proceedings under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (“the Act”) and part of the statement of claim under O 11 r 16 of the Federal Court Rules
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Butorac v WIN Corporation 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] FCA 1503
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the extent of the defendant's duty of care to the plaintiff, whether the defendant breached that duty, and if the breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. The court also needed to consider whether the plaintiff's contributory negligence, if any, should reduce the damages awarded. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by any lack of care on their part and that the plaintiff's own actions contributed to the incident.
The court examined the evidence presented and considered the applicable legal principles. The court found that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, but that duty was not breached. The court further determined that the plaintiff's contributory negligence played a significant role in the incident. Consequently, the court held that the defendant was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The matter was adjourned for further directions as the court needed to address the specific details of the plaintiff's claim and the quantum of damages, if any, to be awarded.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The matter is adjourned for further directions to 9:30am on 5 February 2010, or such other time as may be arranged with my Associate.
Note:
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
Established by: BUCHANAN J
Full text does not contain this section.