John James Goode v Rino Di Donato - [2013] HCASL 65

JOHN JAMES GOODE
v
RINO DI DONATO & ANOR
[2013] HCASL 65
M112/2012

The applicant suffered injuries when he was kicked by a horse in 1999. He commenced proceedings in the County Court of Victoria claiming damages against Mr Boyer, the custodian of the horse, and the Glenelg Shire Council ("the Council"). On the advice of the respondents, his legal representatives, the applicant discontinued the claim against the Council. He obtained judgment against Mr Boyer and was awarded $70,000 in general damages. Thereafter, he commenced the present proceedings claiming damages in negligence contending, among other things, that had the proceedings been brought before 10 October 2002 the Council would not have had the benefit of a statutory immunity[1].
[1]Transport Act 1983 (Vic), s 37A.
Daly AsJ summarily dismissed the proceedings.
Garde J dismissed an appeal against the orders made by Daly AsJ. His Honour found that there was no factual basis for any claim against the Council nor had the applicant established that he had suffered any loss beyond the loss proved against Mr Boyer in the earlier proceedings. His Honour dismissed the appeal.
The applicant applied to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Warren CJ and Bongiorno JA) for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal from Garde J's order. The Court was not satisfied that it was an appropriate case in which to grant the extension sought and it refused the application.
The applicant applies for special leave to appeal. There is nothing in the history of the proceeding that would favour the grant of special leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal's unremarkable procedural order. The application must be dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
8 May 2013 S.J. Gageler

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read John James Goode v Rino Di Donato 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] HCASL 65
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, John James Goode, sought to appeal a decision made by the Supreme Court of Victoria regarding his claim for damages against the Glenelg Shire Council and Mr. Boyer, the custodian of a horse that had injured him. The initial claim against the Council was discontinued, and Goode was awarded $70,000 in damages against Mr. Boyer. Subsequently, Goode initiated new proceedings against the Council, alleging negligence and that the Council would not have benefited from statutory immunity if the proceedings had been brought before a certain date. The County Court judge and the Supreme Court judge dismissed the proceedings on the basis that there was no factual basis for a claim against the Council and that Goode had not suffered any additional loss beyond what was already compensated by Mr. Boyer.

The primary legal issues in this case were whether the Supreme Court properly dismissed Goode's claim and whether the Court of Appeal correctly refused an extension of time for Goode to apply for leave to appeal. The core of the legal debate centred on the interpretation and application of statutory immunity provisions and whether Goode's claim against the Council had any substantive basis. The Court had to determine whether the dismissal of the proceedings was justified and whether the refusal of the extension of time was an appropriate exercise of the Court of Appeal's discretion.

The High Court found that there was no basis to grant special leave to appeal the decisions made by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal's refusal of an extension of time was deemed an appropriate exercise of its discretion. The Court did not find any procedural irregularity or significant error in the lower courts' decisions that would warrant an appeal. The history of the proceedings did not favour the grant of special leave, and thus, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court directed that an order be made dismissing the application.

Orders