Jones v Ranginui

Case [2018] NSWDC 493


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jones v Ranginui [2018] NSWDC 493
Hearing dates: 16, 17 May 2018
Date of orders: 17 May 2018
Decision date: 17 May 2018
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

Notice of motion dismissed. Defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs. I order that this matter be listed for directions on the first day of the first sittings of this Court in 2019.

Catchwords: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – A truck being driven by first defendant collides with rear of a minibus as both are travelling north on the Hume Highway near Jugiong – Plaintiff a passenger in a motor vehicle which arrives shortly after the collision – A woman in the back of the minibus was severely injured – Plaintiff, a “good samaritan/rescuer”, seeks to resuscitate woman, successfully, before arrival of ambulance – Woman later dies in hospital of her injuries – Plaintiff’s action in negligence against first defendant and owner of truck – Case not yet ready for trial at Wagga Wagga – Defendant seeks separate trial of a number of factual and legal issues, pursuant to UCPR 28.2
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Crawley v Vero Insurance Limited [2012] NSWSC 593
Southwell v Bennett [2010] NSWSC 1372
Wicks v State Rail Authority (NSW) (2010) 241 CLR 60
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Marion June Jones (Plaintiff)
Kerei Watene Motuka Ranginui (First Defendant)
K & S Freighters Pty Limited (Second Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr I Roberts SC (Plaintiff)
Mr J Sleight (Defendants)

  Solicitors:
Walsh & Blair Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Moray & Agnew Lawyers (Defendants)
File Number(s): 2016/192799
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: This is an application under UCPR 28.2 for a separate trial of a number of issues in the substantive proceedings. The defendant makes this application by way of a notice of motion, an amended form of which was filed in court yesterday.

Facts

  1. To understand what has happened, it is necessary to briefly consider the statement of claim and the facts behind it. The late Julia Kovac-Nemedi, who was then 26 years old, was a passenger in a green and purple coloured Toyota Coaster bus which can be shortly described as a minibus. That vehicle was travelling north on the Hume Highway on 9 February 2015. The minibus was being driven by Yoad Konikoff, who was then 24 years old. Mr Konikoff was using an Israeli driver's licence. Seated beside him on the passenger side of the minibus was Mr Ben Jacoby, who was also 24 years old. An inference can be drawn that Mr Jacoby was, like Mr Konikoff, an Israeli, and that they were both visitors in this country. The late Julie Kovac-Nemedi was also a visitor to this country. She was from Canada. At the time of a collision which I shall shortly describe, the deceased was lying on a bed located in the rear of the minibus with her…

Continue reading Jones v Ranginui

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Jones v Ranginui [2018] NSWDC 493
Case
[2018] NSWDC 493
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between the plaintiff, who was a passenger in a motor vehicle that arrived shortly after a collision on the Hume Highway, and the first defendant, who was the driver of a truck that collided with the rear of a minibus. The plaintiff, acting as a good Samaritan, attempted to resuscitate a woman who was severely injured in the minibus and succeeded before the arrival of an ambulance. Unfortunately, the woman later died in hospital from her injuries. The plaintiff brought a negligence claim against the first defendant and the owner of the truck. The case was not yet ready for trial, and the defendant sought a separate trial of a number of factual and legal issues pursuant to the UCPR 28.2. The court was required to determine whether the defendant's application for a separate trial should be granted. The court considered the factors relevant to the decision, including the complexity of the issues, the need for a streamlined trial process, and the potential for prejudice to either party. Ultimately, the court found that the application for a separate trial was not warranted and dismissed the notice of motion. The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs and listed the matter for directions on the first day of the first sittings of the Court in 2019.

Orders

Orders of the court

Notice of motion dismissed. Defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs. I order that this matter be listed for directions on the first day of the first sittings of this Court in 2019.

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.