District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Cordin v The Nominal Defendant [2016] NSWDC 12 Hearing dates: 27 October, 3, 4, 5, 6 November, 2015, 29 January 2016 Date of orders: 26 February 2016 Decision date: 26 February 2016 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Judge Levy SC Decision: 1. Verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of liability without discount for alleged contributory negligence;
2. Judgment for the plaintiff in the agreed sum of $350,000;
3. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis until 10 July 2015, and on an indemnity basis from 11 July 2015;
4. The exhibits may be returned;
5. Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further or other orders are required.Catchwords: TORTS – negligence – motor vehicles – determination of contested facts – whether plaintiff fell from his bicycle due to a collision from behind with an alleged unidentified motor vehicle or whether he simply fell from his bicycle – whether plaintiff has established negligence on the part of the driver of an unidentified motor vehicle – whether the defendant has established contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff – evaluation of conflicting expert accident reconstruction evidence – whether expert opinions supported by found facts; PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – application by defendant to call additional expert evidence – exercise of discretion according to the dictates of justice – whether leave should be granted to enable defendant to call additional evidence from its crash reconstruction expert where a report sought to be relied upon from that expert was prepared in draft form during the trial and had not been served 28 days prior to the hearing as required by UCPR r 31.28 – whether defendant was entitled to leave to call oral evidence in chief from its crash reconstruction expert where that expert was not required for cross-examination on content of his already served reports – application of UCPR r 31.21 Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5B, s 5C, s 5D, s 5E, s 5R
Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 56, s 57, s 58
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 31.20, r 31.21, r 31.24 - r 31.26, r 31.28, r 31.35Cases Cited: Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst [1940] HCA 45; (1940) 64 CLR 538
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27
Blacktown City Council v Hocking [2008] NSWCA 144
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588
Elayoubi v Zipser [2008] NSWCA 335
Kelly v Jowett [2009] NSWCA
Luxton v Vines [1952] HCA 19; (1952) 85 CLR 352
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Manley v Alexander [2005] HCA 79; 223 ALR 228
Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227
McLennan v Nominal Defendant [2014] NSWCA 332
Nowlan v Marson Transport Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 346
Phoenix Commercial Enterprises Pty Ltd v City…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Cordin v The Nominal Defendant 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
- [2016] NSWDC 12
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether Cordin had established negligence on the part of the driver of the unidentified motor vehicle and whether the defendant had demonstrated contributory negligence on the part of Cordin. The court also had to evaluate conflicting expert accident reconstruction evidence and determine if the experts' opinions were supported by the facts found. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant should be granted leave to call additional evidence from its crash reconstruction expert, despite not serving the required report 28 days prior to the hearing, in accordance with UCPR r 31.28, and whether the defendant was entitled to call oral evidence in chief from its expert where that expert was not required for cross-examination on the content of their already served reports, in line with UCPR r 31.21.
The court found in favour of Cordin on the issue of liability, concluding that the plaintiff had established negligence on the part of the driver of the unidentified motor vehicle. The court determined that the defendant had not established contributory negligence on the part of Cordin. The court also ruled that the expert opinions were supported by the facts found and dismissed the defendant's application to call additional evidence from its crash reconstruction expert. The court ordered a verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of liability without discount for alleged contributory negligence and judgment for the plaintiff in the agreed sum of $350,000. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis until 10 July 2015, and on an indemnity basis from 11 July 2015. The exhibits were to be returned, and liberty to apply on seven days notice if further or other orders were required.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of liability without discount for alleged contributory negligence;
2. Judgment for the plaintiff in the agreed sum of $350,000;
3. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis until 10 July 2015, and on an indemnity basis from 11 July 2015;
4. The exhibits may be returned;
5. Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further or other orders are required.
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.