Kendirjian v Lepore & Anor - [2016] HCATrans 141

[2016] HCATrans 141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S117 of 2015

B e t w e e n -
DAVID KENDIRJIAN
Applicant
and
EUGENE LEPORE
First Respondent
JIM CONOMOS
Second Respondent
\
Application for special leave to appeal

BELL J
GAGELER J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 17 JUNE 2016, AT 9.14 AM

BELL J: In this matter, Justice Gageler and I are of the view that there should be a grant of special leave. The parties will be contacted about an estimate of time for the hearing of the matter. The parties will also be made aware of the directions necessary for undertaking the appeal. I publish the order signed by Justice Gageler and myself.

AT 9.14 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

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 Kendirjian v Lepore & Anor 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: [2016] HCATrans 141
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Kendirjian v Lepore & Anor* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The dispute arose from a motor vehicle accident in which the appellant, Mr. Kendirjian, suffered injuries. He brought proceedings against the respondents, Mr. Lepore and his insurer, alleging negligence. The primary issue before the High Court was whether the appellant had established a breach of duty of care on the part of Mr. Lepore.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that Mr. Lepore had breached his duty of care to Mr. Kendirjian. Specifically, the court considered whether Mr. Lepore's driving conduct fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver in the circumstances, thereby causing the accident and Mr. Kendirjian's injuries.

In their joint judgment, Bell and Gageler JJ found that the evidence did not establish a breach of duty. They reasoned that the appellant had failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr. Lepore's actions were causative of the collision. The court applied the principles of negligence, emphasizing the need for the plaintiff to prove both a breach of duty and that the breach caused the damage suffered. Without sufficient evidence to establish causation, the claim for negligence could not succeed.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, and ordered that the appellant's claim be dismissed.

Orders