SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Korda v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd (No 2) |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 153 |
Hearing Date(s): | Written submissions filed on 19 June 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 26 June 2017 |
Before: | Robinson AJ |
Decision: | See orders below. |
Catchwords: | PROCEDURE – Costs – no question of principle. |
Parties: | Jenna Korda (Appellant) Aldi Foods Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr J Purnell SC with Mr D Richards (Appellant) Mr N Polin SC (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Maliganis Edwards Johnson (Appellant) Ken Cush and Associates (Respondent) | |
File Number(s): | SCA 85 of 2016 |
Decision under appeal: | Court: Magistrates Court of the ACT Before: Magistrate Theakston Date of Decision: 2 November 2016 Case Title: Jenny Korda v Aldi Foods Pty Limited and Brice Australia (NSW) Pty Limited Citation: [2016] ACTMC 11 |
ROBINSON AJ:
On 8 June 2017, I delivered judgment in the main proceedings in this matter, Korda v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd [2017] ACTSC 96.
In this case I reserved the question of costs at the request of the parties and then received written submissions so that a decision might be made on the papers. I received submissions and some correspondence between the parties.
I consider that the circumstances of this case as argued on appeal do justify a differentiation between the two issues contested. I have given consideration to differing arithmetic formulations to give effect to this situation. On balance, I believe that orders, adhering to the principle concerned, best achieve justice.
Order
Accordingly, my orders and directions are as follows-
(a)Order that the Appellant pay the Respondent’s costs of the Cross Appeal.
(b)Order that the Respondent pay the Appellant’s costs of the Appeal.
(c)Order that the Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant’s costs of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court on a party/party basis up to 18 August 2016 and thereafter on a solicitor/client basis.
(d)Direct that upon taxation, amounts found in favour of a party may be set off.
| I certify that the preceding four [4] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Acting Justice Robinson. Associate: Date: 26 June 2017 |
- AGLC
- Korda v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 153
- Case
- [2017] ACTSC 153
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the defendant breached its duty of care under the common law, and if so, what damages should be awarded to the plaintiff. The court considered whether the wet floor was a foreseeable hazard, whether reasonable steps were taken to mitigate the risk, and whether the plaintiff's actions contributed to his injury. The court also needed to determine the appropriate apportionment of liability and the calculation of damages, including both economic and non-economic losses.
The court held that the defendant had breached its duty of care by failing to adequately address the wet floor hazard, which was foreseeable. The court found that while the plaintiff contributed to his injury by not exercising reasonable care for his own safety, the defendant's primary responsibility was to ensure a safe workplace. The court assessed the damages based on the evidence presented, considering both the plaintiff's loss of earnings and pain and suffering. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, reflecting the degree of contributory negligence. The final orders were made to reflect the court's determination on liability and damages, including the specific amounts awarded and any costs associated with the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
See orders below.
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.