Chattaway v Lloyd and Ors - [2021] SADC 141

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
CHATTAWAY v LLOYD & ORS
[2021] SADC 141
Reasons for Decision of her Honour Judge Schammer
9 December 2021
PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - SEPARATE DECISION OR DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS AND CONSOLIDATION OF PROCEEDINGS - SEPARATE DECISION OR DETERMINATION
The applicant, Nicholas Chattaway, by his litigation guardian, claims damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by him on 5 December 2010 when he was a guest at an 18th birthday party at premises owned and occupied by Ms Dansie and Mr Stankiewicz (the third and fourth respondents).
The applicant claims that while on the premises, and at the party, he was struck to the face by both Mr Lloyd (the first respondent) and Mr Dunn-Lawless (the second respondent), including with glass bottles (the incident).
The applicant claims that the actions of the first and second respondents constituted a deliberate assault upon him or, in the alternative, were the result of an application of force by them resulting from their negligent and/or reckless and/or excessive and/or indifferent actions. Further, he claims the third and fourth respondents were negligent, inter alia, in allowing the first and second respondents to remain on the premises and in failing to ensure that guests at the party were safe from foreseeable risk of injury while on the premises.
The applicant claims to have suffered physical injuries as a result of the acts (and omissions) of the respondents, including fractures to the face, nose and orbit, resulting in partial loss of peripheral vision and partial loss of taste and smell. In addition, the applicant claims to have suffered psychological injuries including post-traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia, resulting in significant loss and damage, including a need for extensive ongoing care and assistance.
The respondents deny liability for any injury, loss and damage allegedly sustained by the applicant. Further, the respondents deny that insofar as the applicant may have suffered any physical injuries in the incident, that there is any link between such injuries and the subsequent development by him of psychological injuries, including schizophrenia, and say that the applicant would have developed and did develop schizophrenia irrespective of any physical injuries sustained as a result of the incident.
The issues of liability, causation and quantum are in dispute.
The third and fourth respondents, supported by the second respondent, seek an order pursuant to r 151.2 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (UCR) that there be a separate trial on liability. The respondents submitted that there was a clear demarcation and no overlap in the issues to be determined as to liability, with only the possible evidence of the applicant in common on all issues. It was submitted that any trial on liability was ready to proceed, would take between eight to ten days, and should proceed forthwith having regard to the lengthy delays already occasioned in the matter.
Conversely it was submitted that there was considerable further expense to be incurred in preparation for any trial on 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.

Continue reading Chattaway v Lloyd and Ors

Details

AGLC: Chattaway v Lloyd [2021] SADC 141
Case: [2021] SADC 141
Decision Date: 9 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings before the court involved an application by the plaintiff, Chattaway, seeking a separate determination of the issue of causation in the matter against the defendants Lloyd and others. The dispute arose out of allegations of medical negligence following a surgical procedure. The court had to determine whether the application for a separate determination of causation should be granted.

The legal issues before the court included whether a separate determination of the issue of causation was warranted, and if so, whether such a determination should proceed before any trial on the issue of quantum. The court considered the principles governing separate determinations under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, focusing on the necessity and practicality of such a separation in this particular case.

The court found that the application for a separate determination of causation was not warranted, as it did not meet the threshold for necessity under the relevant rules. The court also determined that, in the interest of efficiency and practicality, the trial on the issues of liability and causation should proceed before any trial on the issue of quantum. The court further directed that the costs of and incidental to the application remain reserved until further order and indicated that it would hear the parties on any further orders they might seek.

The orders made by the court were that the application for a separate determination of causation was refused, the trial on the issues of liability and causation would proceed before any trial on the issue of quantum, the costs of and incidental to the application would remain reserved until further order, and the court would hear the parties as to any further orders sought.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders:

1. The application is refused.

2. Pursuant to UCR 151.1, the trial on the issues of liability and causation is to proceed before any trial on the issue of quantum.

3. Costs of and incidental to the application to remain reserved until further order.

4. I will hear the parties as to any further orders sought.

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.