Gleeson v Bullock

CITATION:	Gleeson v Bullock [2002] NSWCA 1
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40369/01
HEARING DATE(S):	29 January 2002
JUDGMENT DATE:	29 January 2002
PARTIES :	Kevin Gleeson and Carol Gleeson (Claimants) Sybil Anne Bullock (Opponent)
JUDGMENT OF:	Mason P at 20,22; Beazley JA at 21; Heydon JA at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	DC 9956/99
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Patten DCJ

COUNSEL:	Mr G C Grant (Claimants) Mr S W Hickey (Opponent)
SOLICITORS:	Connery & Partners (Claimants) Donovan Oates Hannaford (Opponent)
DECISION:	Leave refused; summons dismissed with costs.

CA 40369/01
DC 9956/99
MASON P
BEAZLEY JA
HEYDON JA


29 January 2002

KEVIN GLEESON AND ANOR v SYBIL ANNE BULLOCK

JUDGMENT

1 HEYDON JA:

This is an application by way of summons for leave to appeal filed on 28 August 2001 against a verdict given and orders made by Patten DCJ on 10 May 2001.

2 The plaintiff suffered injuries to her left hand on 17 February 1998 which were of sufficient severity to cause the trial judge to conclude that she was entitled to damages in the sum of $93,420. There is no challenge to quantum but only to the trial judge’s conclusions as to liability and contributory negligence.

3 The plaintiff’s husband was employed by Mrs Gleeson (whom I will refer to as the defendant) and her husband as a caretaker of a rural property owned by them, one of the activities on which related to race horses.

4 The trial judge accepted the plaintiff as an honest and reliable witness. He also apparently accepted as honest and reliable the evidence of Mr Robert Fuller who was also employed to train race horses for the Gleesons. The judge quoted paragraphs 6 to 12 of Mr Fuller’s affidavit. Mr Fuller was not cross-examined and no evidence was called to contradict what he said.

5 One of the points that emerged from Mr Fuller’s affidavit was that a horse called “Illegal Legend” had proved very difficult to handle and Mr Fuller gave instances of its bad behaviour. Mr Fuller recorded that shortly after he took charge of training it he gave a direction to all of the people on the property that no-one was to handle the horse except under his strict supervision.

6 Another important aspect of Mr Fuller’s evidence related to the way in which horses should be drenched. This aspect of his evidence is important because the plaintiff’s injury occurred while the horse was being drenched. Mr Fuller said that one should rarely tether a horse when it is being drenched or treated in a similar way. He gave two reasons for that. The first was that a horse which is tethered and feels that it cannot escape while being drenched can react quite violently. The second, which is perhaps irrelevant to the trial judge’s reasoning, was that the horse might injure itself in trying to pull away while being tethered.

7 The injury happened when Mrs Gleeson was drenching the horse.…