NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
CITATION: KAPPADOUKAS v FRANSEPP PTY LTD [2006] NSWCA 366
FILE NUMBER(S):
40025/05
HEARING DATE(S): 27 April 2006
DECISION DATE: 15/12/2006
PARTIES:
Anastasios Kappadoukas - Appellant
Fransepp Pty Ltd - Respondent
JUDGMENT OF: Tobias JA Basten JA Rothman J
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 05898 of 1999
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Rein DCJ
COUNSEL:
Ms S. Norton SC/Ms M. Fraser - Appellant
Mr J.L. Sharpe - Respondent
SOLICITORS:
Peter Baker, Solicitor - Appellant
Stacks/Goudkamp Pty Ltd - Respondent
CATCHWORDS:
EVIDENCE – whether there were inconsistencies in the evidence – whether the trial judge failed to address the corroborative evidence – whether the trial judge failed to deal with probable scenarios that are consistent with all the evidence adduced -
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – whether plaintiff was ‘careless’ in going onto the first floor in the dark – whether such carelessness was a contributing factor to the accident -
DAMAGES – future economic loss – whether diminution in earning capacity has had and will continue to have an adverse effect on his actual earning which will result in economic loss – whether there should be an allowance for future domestic assistance
LEGISLATION CITED:
Uniform Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 101
DECISION:
(i) Appeal allowed;
(ii) Judgment of Rein DCJ of 17 December 2004 be set aside;
(iii) Judgment for the plaintiff in the District Court in an amount of $341,168, such judgment to take effect from 17 December 2004;
(iv) The respondent to pay pre-judgment interest on half the amount of $100,000, at two percent per annum for seven and a half years, being an amount of $7,500;
(v) The respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal and the trial, as agreed or assessed;
(vi) The respondent to be granted an indemnity certificate pursuant to the terms of section 6 of the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 if otherwise entitled.
JUDGMENT:
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40025/05
DC 05898/99TOBIAS JA
BASTEN JA
ROTHMAN J15 December 2006
Anastasios KAPPADOUKAS v FRANSEPP PTY LTD
Judgment
TOBIAS JA: I agree with Rothman J.
BASTEN JA: As Rothman J explains, the plaintiff’s injuries were undoubted as was the fact that they were caused by a significant fall. The question of liability, so far as relevant to the appeal, turned on the question whether the plaintiff fell off the top of the ladder or whether he had reached the first floor of the premises and fell through a hole in the floor. He gave evidence that he had stepped from the ladder to the first floor, taken two paces and found himself back on the ground floor. He landed on his right leg, and fell on to his right shoulder, causing the injuries to those parts of his body.
The plaintiff’s account of the accident was supported by the only other person with him at the time, Mr Paul Curtis, who said…
Continue reading Kappadoukas v Fransepp Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Kappadoukas v Fransepp Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 366
- Case
- [2006] NSWCA 366
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence, particularly concerning alleged inconsistencies in the appellant's testimony and whether the trial judge had failed to adequately address corroborative evidence and probable scenarios consistent with the adduced evidence. Additionally, the court considered whether the appellant had been contributorily negligent by entering the first floor in the dark, and if so, whether this carelessness contributed to his accident. The court also had to determine issues relating to damages, including future economic loss and the need for future domestic assistance.
The appellate court found that the trial judge's assessment of credibility and the alleged inconsistencies relied upon were flawed, partly due to the absence of a trial transcript. The court reasoned that the trial judge had not properly considered all the evidence, including evidence that suggested the appellant was actively seeking employment and had arranged to undertake work shortly before the accident. The court also found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the condition of the premises, including evidence of rotten flooring, which was relevant to the circumstances of the appellant's fall. The court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the District Court and entering judgment for the plaintiff.
The court ordered that the judgment for the plaintiff in the District Court in the amount of $341,168, effective from 17 December 2004, be reinstated. The respondent was ordered to pay pre-judgment interest on half of $100,000 at two percent per annum for seven and a half years, amounting to $7,500. Furthermore, the respondent was to bear the costs of both the appeal and the trial, and was granted an indemnity certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951, if otherwise eligible.
Orders
Orders of the court
(i) Appeal allowed; (ii) Judgment of Rein DCJ of 17 December 2004 be set aside; (iii) Judgment for the plaintiff in the District Court in an amount of $341,168, such judgment to take effect from 17 December 2004; (iv) The respondent to pay pre-judgment interest on half the amount of $100,000, at two percent per annum for seven and a half years, being an amount of $7,500; (v) The respondent to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal and the trial, as agreed or assessed; (vi) The respondent to be granted an indemnity certificate pursuant to the terms of section 6 of the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 if otherwise entitled.
Background
Background to the litigation
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.