O'Connor v Suman - [2015] NSWSC 1812

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: O’Connor v Suman [2015] NSWSC 1812
Hearing dates: 27 November 2015
Date of orders: 27 November 2015
Decision date: 01 December 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to Rule 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) that the question of the defendants’ liability (including the question of whether any negligence or tortious conduct on the part of any of the defendants caused any damage) be decided first and separately from the question of quantum.
(2) The conduct of the separate trial on the question of liability be subject to ongoing judicial management.
(3) The costs of the motion be costs in the cause.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE – notice of motion – separate trial
severing quantum and liability – application for separate trial granted – costs
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Johnson v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church [2009] NSWSC 309
Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board [2001] HCA 19; (2001) 206 CLR 1
Thomas v Oakley [2003] NSWSC 1033
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Caleb O’Connor (Plaintiff)
Nirmal Suman (First Defendant)
Zane Reidy (Second Defendant)
Jake Hudson (Third Defendant)
GEO Group Australia Pty Limited
ABN 25051130600 (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M McAuley (Plaintiff)
Mr A Chhabra (Third Defendant)
Mr S McCarthy (Fourth Defendant)
Solicitors:
Shine Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Blair Criminal Lawyers (Third Defendant)
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Fourth Defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/142422
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

In May 2012, Mr O’Connor was in custody at the Parklea Correctional Centre on remand, awaiting sentence after conviction of various offences at a jury trial. He claims that on 23 May 2012, he was intentionally assaulted and beaten to the head with a sandwich maker, by Mr Suman, Mr Reidy and Mr Hudson, all then also in custody at the Centre, which was being conducted by the GEO Group.
Mr O’Connor seeks damages, including aggravated and punitive damages, for the assault and GEO Group’s breach of the duty of care which it owed him, which resulted in him suffering significant injuries, including serious injuries to his brain, skull, face and arm. He also seeks damages for resulting economic loss and various expenses.
By its defence, GEO Group’s admissions include that Mr O’Connor was the victim of the assault; that it had become aware of a hearsay rumour that he might be the subject of an assault by other unknown prisoners; and that it owed him a duty of care. The scope and extent of its duty is put in issue, as is the question of causation. It also denies that it breached that duty. GEO also pleads that Mr O’Connor’s claims are governed by Part 2A “Special provisions for offenders in custody” of the Civil Liability Act2002 (NSW). It also claims that all of Mr O’Connor’s injuries, loss and damage were wholly caused…

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.

Continue reading O'Connor v Suman

Details

AGLC: O'Connor v Suman [2015] NSWSC 1812
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1812
Decision Date: 01 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In O'Connor v Suman, the parties were contesting a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident. The dispute centred on the quantum of damages awarded for the injuries sustained. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, O'Connor, sought a separate trial to determine the issue of quantum from the issue of liability, which was opposed by the defendant, Suman. The court was required to decide whether it was appropriate to sever the trial of quantum from liability and, if so, whether the application should be granted.

The legal issues involved assessing whether a separate trial for quantum was appropriate under the relevant legislation and procedural rules. The court considered the balance of convenience and the potential for prejudice to either party if the issues were tried together. The plaintiff argued that a separate trial would expedite the proceedings and potentially reduce costs, while the defendant contended that a joint trial would be more efficient. The court also had to consider the costs implications of the application.

The court found that a separate trial for quantum was appropriate given the complexity and potential for delay if the issues were tried together. The court acknowledged that the issues of quantum and liability could be considered independently, and that a separate trial would likely be more efficient and fair to both parties. The court granted the application for a separate trial and ordered the parties to bear their own costs of the application. This decision highlights the importance of carefully considering the procedural options available in personal injury cases to ensure a fair and efficient resolution.

Orders