Liverpool City Council v Altaf Laskar

Link copied
Case Copied 53 min read
Reported Decision: 77 NSWLR 666

New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: Liverpool City Council v Altaf Laskar [2010] NSWCA 52
HEARING DATE(S): 24/03/10
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

20 April 2010
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Macfarlan JA at 13; Whealy J at 14
DECISION: Appeal dismissed. Order the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS: APPEAL from District Court - Damages appeal - Proper construction of s 15B(2) of Civil Liability Act 2002 - Meaning of phrase "domestic services" - Statutory interpretation - Whether phrase to be given a restricted meaning - Whether leave should be given to raise a point not relied on below - prejudice to other party - Whether factual findings on damages were "glaringly improbable".
LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002
Civil Liability Amendment Act (No 50 of 2006)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
CASES CITED: Oaktwig Pty Ltd v Williams [2008] NSWCA 106
Suttor v Gundowda (1950) 81 CLR 418 at 438
White v Operland [2001] FCA 1333
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1 at 7/8
Metwally v University of Wollongong (1985) 68 ALR 68 at 71-72
O'Sullivan v Watson (1986) 7 NSWLR 693 at 702G-703C
Amaca Pty Limited v Novek [2009] NSWCA 50 at [27] - [29]
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR at 332-333
CSR Limited v Eddy [2005] HCA 64; [2005] 226 CLR 1
Sullivan v Gordon (1999) NSWCA 338; (1999) 47 NSWLR 319
Marsland v Andjelic (1993) 31 NSWLR 162
Brunskill v Sovereign Marine and General Insurance Co Limited (1985) 59 ALJR 842 at 844; 62 ALR 53 at 73
Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263 at 264
Yarrabee Coal Company Pty Limited & Anor v Lujans [2009] NSWCA 85 per Beazley JA
PARTIES: Liverpool City Council v Altaf Laskar
FILE NUMBER(S): CA CA 40260/09
COUNSEL: Mr J Maconachie QC; J Stewart - Appellant
Ms Norton SC; Ms M Fraser - Respondent
SOLICITORS: McCulloch & Buggy - Appellant
Brydens Lawyers - Respondent
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 4548/06
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Judge Ainslie-Wallace





                          CA 2009/40260
                          DC 4548/2006

                          BEAZLEY JA
                          MACFARLAN JA
                          WHEALY J

                          TUESDAY 20 April 2010
LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL v Altaf LASKAR
Judgment

1 BEAZLEY JA: In my opinion, the appeal in this matter should be dismissed. The principal ground argued by the appellant was the proper construction of the Civil Liability Act 2002, s 15B(2). In this regard, as Whealy J explains at [15], the appellant argued that the award of damages was not authorised by s 15B on the basis that the services provided to the respondent’s daughter were not “domestic services” within the meaning of s 15B(2). In submissions in reply, the appellant accepted, without conceding, that some of the services provided by the respondent to his disabled daughter may have fallen within the description of “domestic services” within the meaning of 15B.

2 At trial, counsel for the appellant…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Liverpool City Council v Altaf Laskar 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
[2010] NSWCA 52
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Liverpool City Council appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the District Court awarding damages to Altaf Laskar. The dispute concerned the proper construction of section 15B(2) of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), specifically the meaning of the phrase "domestic services" in the context of assessing damages for gratuitous services. The Council contended that the District Court had erred in its interpretation of this phrase.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the phrase "domestic services" in section 15B(2) of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* should be given a restricted meaning, thereby limiting the types of services that could be compensated. A secondary issue was whether leave should be granted to raise a point not relied upon in the District Court, considering potential prejudice to the respondent and whether the factual findings on damages were "glaringly improbable".

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that the phrase "domestic services" in section 15B(2) should not be given a restricted meaning. The Court reasoned that the ordinary and natural meaning of the words should prevail, and there was no indication within the statutory language or its context to suggest a narrower interpretation. The Court also found no error in the factual findings of the District Court regarding damages, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed. Order the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

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.