Dickson v Northern Lakes Rugby League Sport & Recreation Club Inc

Case [2020] NSWCA 294


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Dickson v Northern Lakes Rugby League Sport & Recreation Club Inc [2020] NSWCA 294
Hearing dates: 1 May 2020
Date of orders: 18 November 2020
Decision date: 18 November 2020
Before: Basten JA at [1];
White JA at [18];
Simpson AJA at [39]
Decision:

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. The appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

Catchwords:

TORTS – general principles – Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) – personal injury – “spear tackle” or “dangerous throw” during a rugby league match – whether “intent to cause injury” – presumption that a wrongdoer intends the natural and probable consequences of his or her conduct.

WORDS AND PHRASES – meaning of “intent to cause injury” – Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 3B(1) – actual, subjective, intention

NEGLIGENCE – defences – Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) – s 5L materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity – whether intentional act – whether effected with intent cause injury – recreational activity where an intention to cause some degree of injury is likely or common.

Legislation Cited:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 3B, 5, 5L, 51, 52; Pt 1A, Pt 7

Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 (NSW), s 9

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 79

Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 33

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A

Cases Cited:

Advanced Wire and Cable Pty Ltd v Abdulle [2009] VSCA 107

Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL)

Carter v Hastings River Greyhound Racing Club [2020] NSWCA 185

Cowell v Corrective Services Commission of New South Wales (1988) 13 NSWLR 714

Croucher v Cachia (2016) 95 NSWLR 117; [2016] NSWCA 132

Dean v Phung [2012] NSWCA 223; (2012) Aust-Tort Rep 82-111

Dickson v Northern Lakes Rugby League Sport & Recreation Club Inc (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 433

Dickson v Northern Lakes Rugby League Sport and Recreation Club Inc [2019] NSWDC 426

Fede v Gray by his tutor NSW Trustee and Guardian [2018] NSWCA 316

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22

Hayer v Kan [2014] NSWSC 126

Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495; [1992] HCA 56

McCracken v Melbourne Storm Rugby League Football Club [2005] NSWSC 107; [2007] NSWCA 353; [2007] Aust Tort Reports 81-295

NU v NSW Secretary of Family & Community Services (2017) 95 NSWLR 577; [2017] NSWCA 221

Palmer Bruyn and Parker v Parsons (2001) 208 CLR 388; [2001] HCA 69

Parker v The Queen (1963) 111 CLR 610; [1963] HCA 14

R v Willmot (No 2) [1985] 2 Qd R 413

Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22; (2016) 90 ALJR 679

Sangha v Baxter [2009] NSWCA 78; (2009) 52 MVR 492

Scalise v Bezzina [2003] NSWCA 362

Smyth v The Queen (1957) 98 CLR…

Continue reading Dickson v Northern Lakes Rugby League Sport & Recreation Clu...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dickson v Northern Lakes Rugby League Sport & Recreation Club Inc [2020] NSWCA 294
Case
[2020] NSWCA 294
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Dickson v Northern Lakes Rugby League Sport & Recreation Club Inc* concerned a claim for personal injury arising from a "spear tackle" or "dangerous throw" during a rugby league match. The appellant, the injured player, brought proceedings against the respondent club.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales were whether the conduct of the player who executed the tackle was done with the "intent to cause injury" for the purposes of section 3B(1) of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), and whether the defence under section 5L of the Act, relating to materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity, was applicable.

The court considered the meaning of "intent to cause injury" under section 3B(1), concluding that it requires an actual, subjective intention to cause harm. While it is presumed that a wrongdoer intends the natural and probable consequences of their conduct, this presumption does not equate to an actual intention to cause injury. The court found that the tackle, while dangerous and potentially causing injury, was not undertaken with the subjective intent to cause injury as required by the Act. Furthermore, the court determined that the defence under section 5L was available, as the risk of injury from such a tackle was an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity, and the activity did not involve an intentional act to cause injury.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. The appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

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.