Officeworks Ltd v Christopher - [2019] NSWCA 96

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Officeworks Ltd v Christopher [2019] NSWCA 96
Hearing dates: 16 April 2019
Decision date: 06 May 2019
Before: Meagher JA at [1];
Gleeson JA at [2];
Leeming JA at [3]
Decision:
1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the judgment entered on 19 October 2018.

3. Direct the parties to provide an agreed amount of judgment, or, in default of agreement, direct the parties to provide the judgment amounts for which she and it contend and short submissions in support, in accordance with the timetable in order 5 below.

4. Direct the parties to provide an agreed minute of order as to costs, or, in default of agreement, direct the parties to provide the orders as to costs for which she and it contend and short submissions in support, in accordance with the timetable in order 5 below.
5. Any documents supplied by Ms Christopher pursuant to orders 3 and 4 above to be supplied to the Associate of Leeming JA and served within 14 days of today, and any documents supplied by Officeworks pursuant to orders 3 and 4 above to be supplied to the Associate of Leeming JA and served within 28 days of today, with a view to any remaining issue being determined on the papers.
Catchwords:
APPEALS – appeal confined to damages – concession that appeal should be allowed – whether remitter necessary – powers of Court of Appeal to make findings of fact – desirability of avoiding retrial
NEGLIGENCE – occupier’s liability – object fell on plaintiff’s shoulder while in premises – occupier did not challenge liability – appeal limited to damages – plaintiff had undergone shoulder surgery shortly beforehand – absence of findings of fact by primary judge as to circumstances of the accident – whether on the basis most favourable to plaintiff, she had established injury from occupier’s negligence – smaller judgment substituted
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5D, 5E, 15, 16
Constitution Act 1902 (NSW), s 53
Judicial Officers Act 1986 (NSW), Parts 6 and 7
Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 75A, 105, 107
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 51.53
Cases Cited: Firth v Sutton [2010] NSWCA 90
GIO of NSW v Evans (1990) 21 NSWLR 564
Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351; [1988] HCA 64
Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36; 92 ALJR 806
Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375; [2013] HCA 19
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Christina Christopher (Appellant)
Officeworks Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Watson SC, I Griscti (Appellant)
K Andrews, R Brown (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Gilchrist Connell (Appellant)
Slater & Gordon (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/347254
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Citation:

None

Date of Decision:

19 October 2018

Before:

Maiden DCJ

File Number(s):

2015/223966

Judgment

MEAGHER JA: I agree with Leeming JA.
GLEESON JA: I agree with Leeming JA.
LEEMING JA

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 Officeworks Ltd v Christopher

Details

AGLC: Officeworks Ltd v Christopher [2019] NSWCA 96
Case: [2019] NSWCA 96
Decision Date: 06 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Officeworks Ltd v Christopher*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal by Officeworks Ltd concerning the quantum of damages awarded to the respondent, Ms Christopher, following an incident on Officeworks' premises. Officeworks did not challenge its liability for the incident, which involved an object falling and striking Ms Christopher's shoulder. The appeal was therefore confined to the assessment of damages.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had made sufficient findings of fact to properly assess damages, particularly given that Ms Christopher had undergone shoulder surgery shortly before the incident. The court was required to determine whether, on the most favourable interpretation of the facts for Ms Christopher, she had established that her injury was a consequence of Officeworks' negligence, and if so, what the appropriate quantum of damages should be. A further issue was whether a remitter for a new trial on damages was necessary, or if the Court of Appeal could make the necessary findings of fact itself to avoid a retrial.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the primary judge had failed to make adequate findings of fact regarding the circumstances of the accident and its causal connection to Ms Christopher's injuries. While acknowledging that the appeal was confined to damages and that liability was conceded, the court found that the absence of specific factual findings prevented a proper assessment. Applying principles of occupier's liability and the court's power to make findings of fact to avoid a retrial, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted a smaller judgment amount.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the judgment entered on 19 October 2018 be set aside. The parties were directed to agree on an amount for the judgment, or in default of agreement, to provide their respective proposed judgment amounts and short submissions. The parties were also to agree on an order as to costs, or in default, provide their contentions. These submissions were to be provided within specified timeframes, with the aim of resolving any remaining issues on the papers.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the judgment entered on 19 October 2018.

3. Direct the parties to provide an agreed amount of judgment, or, in default of agreement, direct the parties to provide the judgment amounts for which she and it contend and short submissions in support, in accordance with the timetable in order 5 below.

4. Direct the parties to provide an agreed minute of order as to costs, or, in default of agreement, direct the parties to provide the orders as to costs for which she and it contend and short submissions in support, in accordance with the timetable in order 5 below.

5. Any documents supplied by Ms Christopher pursuant to orders 3 and 4 above to be supplied to the Associate of Leeming JA and served within 14 days of today, and any documents supplied by Officeworks pursuant to orders 3 and 4 above to be supplied to the Associate of Leeming JA and served within 28 days of today, with a view to any remaining issue being determined on the papers.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Officeworks Ltd v Christopher [2019] NSWCA 96
Hearing dates:	16 April 2019
Decision date:	06 May 2019
Before:	Meagher JA at [1]; Gleeson JA at [2]; Leeming JA at [3]
Decision:	1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside the judgment entered on 19 October 2018. 3. Direct the parties to provide an agreed amount of judgment, or, in default of agreement, direct the parties to provide the judgment amounts for which she and it contend and short submissions in support, in accordance with the timetable in order 5 below. 4. Direct the parties to provide an agreed minute of order as to costs, or, in default of agreement, direct the parties to provide the orders as to costs for which she and it contend and short submissions in support, in accordance with the timetable in order 5 below. 5. Any documents supplied by Ms Christopher pursuant to orders 3 and 4 above to be supplied to the Associate of Leeming JA and served within 14 days of today, and any documents supplied by Officeworks pursuant to orders 3 and 4 above to be supplied to the Associate of Leeming JA and served within 28 days of today, with a view to any remaining issue being determined on the papers.
Catchwords:	APPEALS – appeal confined to damages – concession that appeal should be allowed – whether remitter necessary – powers of Court of Appeal to make findings of fact – desirability of avoiding retrial NEGLIGENCE – occupier’s liability – object fell on plaintiff’s shoulder while in premises – occupier did not challenge liability – appeal limited to damages – plaintiff had undergone shoulder surgery shortly beforehand – absence of findings of fact by primary judge as to circumstances of the accident – whether on the basis most favourable to plaintiff, she had established injury from occupier’s negligence – smaller judgment substituted
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5D, 5E, 15, 16 Constitution Act 1902 (NSW), s 53 Judicial Officers Act 1986 (NSW), Parts 6 and 7 Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 75A, 105, 107 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 51.53
Cases Cited:	Firth v Sutton [2010] NSWCA 90 GIO of NSW v Evans (1990) 21 NSWLR 564 Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351; [1988] HCA 64 Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36; 92 ALJR 806 Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375; [2013] HCA 19
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Christina Christopher (Appellant) Officeworks Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: G Watson SC, I Griscti (Appellant) K Andrews, R Brown (Respondent) Solicitors: Gilchrist Connell (Appellant) Slater & Gordon (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2018/347254
Publication restriction:	None
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: District Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Civil Citation: None Date of Decision: 19 October 2018 Before: Maiden DCJ File Number(s): 2015/223966