Lutton v Willingham and Nominal Defendant

Case [2012] NSWDC 92


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lutton v Willingham & Nominal Defendant [2012] NSWDC 92
Hearing dates:21 & 22/06/12
Decision date: 27 June 2012
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Levy SC DCJ
Decision:

1.Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants on the issue of liability;

2.The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs of the trial of the liability issues on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;

3.The exhibits may be returned;

4.A directions hearing is appointed before the List Judge for 9.30am on Monday 9 July 2012 to ascertain the readiness of the parties for a trial of the remaining damages issues;

5.Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: TORTS - motorcycle accident on crown land - collision between two unregistered uninsured motorcycles on bushland track - separate issues tried - whether the plaintiff was a trespasser on crown land - whether first defendant was negligent - whether contributory negligence of plaintiff
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5B
Crown Lands Act 1989, Pt 5, s 80, s 87, s 160
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, s 3, s 33
Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1997, s 4
Cases Cited: Barker v R [1983] HCA 18; (1983) 153 CLR 338
Council of the Municipality of Randwick v Rutledge [1959] HCA 63; (1959) 102 CLR 54
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Troy Lutton (Plaintiff)
Timothy Willingham (First defendant)
The Nominal Defendant (Second defendant)
Representation: Mr A Lidden SC with Ms E Welsh (Plaintiff)
Mr J Stonham (Solicitor for first defendant)
Mr J Sexton SC (Second defendant)
Brydens (Plaintiff)
John Stonham & Co (First defendant)
GILD Insurance Litigation Pty Ltd (Second defendant)
File Number(s):2011/121669
Publication restriction:None

Judgment

Table of Contents

Nature of case

[1] - [4]

Issues

[5]

Facts

[6] - [25]

Issue 1 - Whether plaintiff was a trespasser

[26] - [48]

Issue 2 - Alleged negligence of first defendant

[49] - [64]

Issue 3 - Alleged contributory negligence

[65] - [71]

Disposition

[72]

Costs

[73]

Orders

[74]

Nature of the case

  1. The plaintiff, Mr Troy Lutton, brings this action for damages for personal injury against the first defendant, Mr Timothy Willingham in respect of a motorcycle collision that occurred at about 4.30pm on the afternoon of 26 April 2009 between two motorcycles on an unsealed earthen bush track or trail at an intersection of two such tracks located in bushland on crown land at Yanderra, NSW.

  1. The proceedings are governed by the provisions of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 ["MAC Act"]. As…

Continue reading Lutton v Willingham and Nominal Defendant

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lutton v Willingham and Nominal Defendant [2012] NSWDC 92
Case
[2012] NSWDC 92
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lutton v Willingham and Nominal Defendant involved a dispute arising from a motorcycle accident on crown land. The plaintiff, Lutton, was involved in a collision with the first defendant, Willingham, while riding unregistered, uninsured motorcycles on a bushland track. The dispute encompassed several distinct issues, including whether the plaintiff was a trespasser on crown land, whether the first defendant was negligent, and whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court, which was tasked with determining these complex issues.

The central legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the plaintiff was a trespasser on the crown land, whether the first defendant was negligent in causing the accident, and whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The court had to establish the facts surrounding the accident, determine the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved, and assess the extent of any negligence on both sides. The determination of these issues was critical as they directly impacted the allocation of liability and the potential for any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

In delivering its judgment, the court found in favour of the plaintiff on the issue of liability against both the first and second defendants. The court concluded that the first defendant was negligent in causing the accident, and that the plaintiff was not a trespasser on the crown land. The court also found that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. The reasoning behind these findings was based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles. The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the trial of the liability issues on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered. Additionally, a directions hearing was set to ascertain the readiness of the parties for a trial of the remaining damages issues.

The final orders included a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants on the issue of liability, with the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the trial of the liability issues. The exhibits were to be returned, and a directions hearing was appointed for 9.30am on Monday 9 July 2012. The parties were granted liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders were required. These orders concluded the first phase of the litigation, focusing on the issues of liability, and set the stage for further proceedings concerning the assessment of damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants on the issue of liability;

2.The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs of the trial of the liability issues on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;

3.The exhibits may be returned;

4.A directions hearing is appointed before the List Judge for 9.30am on Monday 9 July 2012 to ascertain the readiness of the parties for a trial of the remaining damages issues;

5.Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.