Castro v Hillery

[2002] QCA 428

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
WILLIAMS JA
WILSON J

Appeal No 590 of 2002

LOLINY CASTRO (BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN ANTONIO CASTRO)

Respondent (Plaintiff)

and

BRIAN ERNEST HILLERY

and

SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED (formerly SUNCORP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED) ACN 075 695 966

and

NORTH QUEENSLAND ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED ACN 078 848 978

and

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNT ISA

(First Defendant)

First Appellant(Second Defendant)

Second Appellant(Third Defendant)

(Fourth Defendant)

BRISBANE

..DATE 18/10/2002

ORDER

DAVIES JA: This matter was heard by a Court consisting of The President, Justice Williams and Justice Wilson. The further orders of the Court are:

That the order for costs made on 20 September 2002 be vacated;
That the respondent pay the appellants' costs of and incidental to the appeal other than the costs relating to grounds 2.2, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 and 2.13 in the notice of appeal, such costs to be assessed on the standard basis;
That the appellants pay the respondent's costs thrown away by the abandonment of grounds 2.2, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12 and 2.13 in the notice of appeal, such costs to be assessed on the standard basis.

I publish the reasons for judgment of the Court.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Queensland Court of Appeal was an appeal against a decision of a trial judge, who had found the first defendant, Brian Ernest Hillery, and the third defendant, North Queensland Electricity Corporation Limited, liable for damages to the plaintiff, Loliny Castro, who was represented by her litigation guardian, Antonio Castro. The appeal was brought by the first and second defendants, Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited and the Council of the City of Mount Isa, respectively, against the decision of the trial judge. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of liability, and if so, to what extent.

The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of liability in relation to the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff had fallen from a swing at a council-owned park and had sustained serious injuries. The plaintiff's case was that the swing was defective and that the defendants had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the swing was safe for use. The trial judge had found that the defendants were liable for the plaintiff's injuries, and had awarded damages to the plaintiff. The defendants appealed against the trial judge's decision, arguing that they were not liable for the plaintiff's injuries, and that the trial judge had erred in his assessment of liability.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not erred in his assessment of liability. The Court found that the swing was indeed defective, and that the defendants had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the swing was safe for use. The Court found that the defendants were therefore liable for the plaintiff's injuries, and that the trial judge's award of damages was appropriate. The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal, and ordered that the order for costs made on 20 September 2002 be vacated. The Court ordered that the respondent pay the appellants' costs of and incidental to the appeal other than the costs relating to certain grounds of appeal, and that the appellants pay the respondent's costs thrown away by the abandonment of certain grounds of appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established