Goode v Angland

Case [2017] NSWCA 311

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Goode v Angland [2017] NSWCA 311
Hearing dates:5 and 6 April 2017
Decision date: 07 December 2017
Before: Beazley P at [1];
Meagher JA at [177];
Leeming JA at [180]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:

TORTS – negligence – Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5K, 5L – meaning of “recreational activity” – whether “any sport” includes professional horseracing

 

TORTS – negligence – where appellant injured during fall while racing as a professional jockey – where respondent a jockey in the same race – whether the primary judge erred in not finding that the respondent moved his horse in front of the appellant’s horse when it was unreasonable to do so

  EVIDENCE – use of photographic and video evidence – where the fall was captured on video by multiple cameras – whether primary judge impermissibly used video and photographic evidence to make findings as to how the fall occurred
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5D, 5F, 5I, 5K, 5L, 5M
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 79
Cases Cited: Action Paintball Games Pty Ltd (in liq) v Barker [2013] NSWCA 128
Alameddine v Glenworth Valley Horse Riding Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 219; 324 ALR 355
Angel v Hawkesbury City Council (2008) Aust Torts Reports 81-955; [2008] NSWCA 130
Asim v Penrose & Anor [2010] NSWCA 366
Bankstown City Council v Zraika; Roads and Maritime Services v Zraika [2016] NSWCA 51
Beaton v McDivitt (1985) 13 NSWLR 134
Belna Pty Ltd v Irwin [2009] NSWCA 46
Blacktown City Council v Hocking (2008) Aust Torts Reports 81-956; [2008] NSWCA 144
Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297; [1981] HCA 26
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588; [2011] HCA 21
Dodge v Snell [2011] TASSC 19
Fallas v Mourlas (2006) 65 NSWLR 418; [2006] NSWCA 32
FBHS (Aust) Pty Ltd v Stone Homes Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 312
Fitness First Australia Pty Ltd v Fenshaw Pty Ltd (2016) 92 NSWLR 128; [2016] NSWCA 207
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Herne Investments (NSW) Pty Limited v Don Watson Proprietary Limited [2016] NSWCA 72
Motorcycling Events Group Australia Pty Ltd v Kelly (2013) 86 NSWLR 55; [2013] NSWCA 361
Paul v Cooke (2013) 85 NSWLR 167; [2013] NSWCA 311
QBE v Orcher; Bowcliff v Orcher [2013] NSWCA 478
R v Ames [1964-5] NSWR 1489
Rootes v Shelton (1967) 116 CLR 383; [1967] HCA 39
Schmidt v Schmidt [1969] QWN 3
Schultz v McCormack [2015] NSWCA 330
Sharp v Parramatta City Council (2015) 209 LGERA 220; [2015] NSWCA 260
Townsend v O’Donnell (2016) 78 MVR 283; [2016] NSWCA 288
Warren v Gittoes [2009] NSWCA 24
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 460; [2002] HCA 9
Yarrabee Coal Company Pty Ltd & Anor v Lujans (2009) Aust Torts Reports 82-024; [2009]…

Continue reading Goode v Angland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Goode v Angland [2017] NSWCA 311
Case
[2017] NSWCA 311
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Goode v Angland* concerned a negligence claim brought by the appellant, a professional jockey, who suffered injury during a fall while racing. The respondent was another jockey in the same race. The appellant alleged that the respondent had negligently moved his horse in front of the appellant's horse at an unreasonable time, causing the fall. The primary judge had found in favour of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent did not breach his duty of care to the appellant. Specifically, the court considered whether the respondent's actions in moving his horse constituted negligence, and whether the primary judge had improperly used photographic and video evidence to reach her findings about the cause of the fall. A further issue was whether the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), particularly sections 5K and 5L, applied to the circumstances, and if so, whether professional horseracing constituted a "recreational activity" for the purposes of the Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the primary judge had not erred in her assessment of the evidence or her application of the law. The court held that the primary judge was entitled to rely on the video and photographic evidence to make findings of fact. Furthermore, the court determined that professional horseracing did not fall within the definition of a "recreational activity" as contemplated by sections 5K and 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), meaning the protections afforded by those sections were not available to the respondent. However, this did not alter the outcome, as the primary judge's finding that the respondent had not breached his duty of care was upheld on the facts.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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.