Hana v Juno Investments Pty Ltd - [2003] NSWSC 551

CITATION: Hana v Juno Investments Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 551

HEARING DATE(S): 05/05/03 and 06/05/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 June 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Newman AJ at 1

DECISION: Judgment for the Plaintiff for $840,229.25. Costs order deferred.

CATCHWORDS: Negligence - Contributory negligence - Assessment of damages

CASES CITED: Dailly v Spot-On Investments Pty Ltd (1995) Aust Torts Reports 81-363

PARTIES :
Adel Hana
Juno Investments Pty Ltd

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20847/01

COUNSEL: Pl: D Elliott
Def: D O'Dowd

SOLICITORS: Pl: Stephen Smart & Associates
Def: Moray & Agnew

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

20847/01

ADEL HANA v JUNO INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
JUDGMENT

1 NEWMAN AJ: This is a claim made by the Plaintiff for damages for personal injuries which he suffered at the Defendant’s premises on 20 January 2000. The Defendant denies liability and alternatively raises a defence of contributory negligence.

2 I find the following facts.

3 On 20 January 2000 and at all relevant times, the Defendant operated licensed premises at Railway Parade Carlton which were known as the Royal Hotel. Part of those licensed premises included a bottle shop at which customers from the hotel could purchase bottles of potable spirit and other liquids. The Plaintiff who owned and operated a hire car business was an occasional customer of the Defendant’s business. Other than purchasing alcohol for his own consumption the Plaintiff purchased liquor for consumption by passengers in vehicles operated by him.

4 On 20 January 2000 the Plaintiff having visited the international terminal at Kingsford Smith Airport for the purpose of picking up a passenger, on finding that his passenger had not arrived on the flight for which he was scheduled to arrive left the airport to go home. On his way home (he then lived at Ruby Street Hurstville) he stopped outside the Defendant’s premises at Carlton. He then entered the Defendant’s premises. His purpose in visiting the Defendant’s premises was firstly to buy beer to consume with his evening meal and second to see if there was any liquor available at a competitive price which he could use to stock his hire car for consumption by his passengers.

5 Whilst at the Defendant’s premises he selected two bottles of beer from a refrigerator and was carrying them towards the shop’s counter to pay for them. While walking towards the counter he was looking at the liquor on display to ascertain if there was any suitable liquor for sale for the purpose of stocking his vehicle. While so proceeding he stepped into an open manhole on the floor of the premises and fell some 2.5 metres to the concrete floor of the cellar to which the manhole gave access. He suffered substantial injuries in that fall. I shall return to the nature and effect those injuries had upon the Plaintiff later in these reasons.

6 There was no issue in the case that the manhole was in any way guarded by a barrier at the relevant time. Subsequently a…

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 Hana v Juno Investments Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Hana v Juno Investments Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 551
Case: [2003] NSWSC 551
Decision Date: 24 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Hana v Juno Investments Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff, Hana, sought damages against the defendant, Juno Investments Pty Ltd, for injuries sustained in a workplace accident. Hana alleged that Juno Investments Pty Ltd was negligent in its duty of care towards her, which resulted in her injuries. The defendant, in turn, argued that Hana's own contributory negligence played a significant role in her injuries, and that they were not solely responsible for her damages.

The central legal issues before the court involved the assessment of the defendant's liability for negligence, the extent to which Hana's contributory negligence impacted the damages she could claim, and the appropriate quantification of damages in light of these considerations. The court had to determine the primary duty of care owed by Juno Investments Pty Ltd to Hana, whether the defendant breached this duty, and to what extent Hana's own actions contributed to her injuries. Additionally, the court needed to decide on the appropriate compensation to be awarded to Hana.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that Juno Investments Pty Ltd was indeed negligent in its duty of care towards Hana. However, it also found that Hana's contributory negligence significantly contributed to her injuries. The court carefully considered the evidence presented on both sides and concluded that Hana was entitled to a reduced amount of damages, reflecting her contributory negligence. The court awarded Hana damages for her losses, taking into account the degree to which she was responsible for the circumstances leading to her injuries.

Orders