Butorac v WIN Corporation Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read

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, 53B

Federal 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 298

DAVID 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
Applicant

AND:

WIN CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 000 737 404)
First Respondent

BRUCE 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
Applicant

AND:

WIN CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 000 737 404)
First Respondent

BRUCE GORDON
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE:

15 DECEMBER 2009

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BUCHANAN J:

  1. 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

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2009] FCA 1503
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Butorac v WIN Corporation Pty Ltd was heard before a court, where the plaintiff, Butorac, was seeking compensation from the defendant, WIN Corporation Pty Ltd. The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of an incident that occurred at one of the defendant's properties. The dispute centred on the defendant's liability for the injuries, with the plaintiff alleging that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of visitors at the property.

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

BUCHANAN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: BUCHANAN J

Full text does not contain this section.