Pelka v Woolworths Limited - [2016] NSWSC 1312

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pelka v Woolworths Limited [2016] NSWSC 1312
Hearing dates: 15 September 2016
Decision date: 16 September 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) Proceedings No 2015/368765 in the District Court of New South Wales are transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
(2) The pleadings in proceedings No 2015/368765 in the District Court of New South Wales stand as pleadings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales proceedings.
(3) Costs of the proceedings before me are costs in the cause.

Catchwords: CIVIL – PROCEDURE – transfer of proceedings – application for transfer of proceedings from District Court of New South Wales to the Supreme Court of New South Wales – claim for damages may exceed jurisdictional limit of the District Court – whether transfer in the interests of justice
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 140, 140(3)(b)(i), 140(3)(b)(ii)
Cases Cited: Johnstone v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWCA 105
Lazare v City of Sydney Council [2015] NSWSC 1546
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Zuzanna Pelka (Plaintiff)
Woolworths Limited (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Hickey (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Beilby Poulden Costello (Plaintiff)
Meridian Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2016/267502

Judgment

Introduction

By way of summons filed in this Court on 6 September 2016, Ms Zuzanna Pelka (the plaintiff) seeks transfer of proceedings commenced in the District Court of New South Wales (by way of a statement of claim filed on 16 December 2015) to this Court. That application is opposed by Woolworths Limited (the defendant). The matter came before me in the Duty List yesterday, and I indicated to the parties that I would endeavour to provide my judgment today.

Background

The background may be shortly stated. In her statement of claim, the plaintiff asserts that, whilst shopping in a supermarket of the defendant, she slipped and fell, fracturing her left kneecap. Her claim is that her fall was caused by the presence of liquid on the floor of the supermarket negligently left there by the defendant. That assertion is rejected in a defence filed for the defendant in the District Court on 8 April 2016.
The claim of the plaintiff is that her fractured knee has had a number of secondary effects. They include: a marked limp that has led to chronic back pain; injury in the form of bursitis (a disease of inflammation) to her hip; and bodily disfigurement in the form of surgical scarring. Although it has been made clear on her behalf that she will not be claiming past or future economic loss, her claim is that her injuries will call for very substantial care in the future.
The defendant does not dispute that the plaintiff suffered the injury. However, as for damages, it is disputed that she will require substantial care in the years ahead. Indeed, the position of the defendant is that many of the asserted deficits experienced by the plaintiff are to be sheeted home to a combination of pre-existing physical…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pelka v Woolworths Limited 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: [2016] NSWSC 1312
Decision Date: 16 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pelka v Woolworths Limited involved the plaintiff, Pelka, who sought damages for injuries sustained in a shopping centre car park owned and operated by Woolworths Limited. The plaintiff filed a claim in the District Court of New South Wales, but later realised that the potential damages might exceed the jurisdictional limit of the District Court. Consequently, Pelka applied to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, arguing that the transfer was necessary in the interests of justice. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the potential quantum of damages would exceed the jurisdictional limit of the District Court and if the transfer was appropriate to ensure justice was served.

The court examined the statutory provisions governing jurisdictional limits and the criteria for transferring proceedings between courts. It noted that the plaintiff's potential damages, if awarded, might surpass the maximum limit that the District Court could impose. The court also considered the principle that the interests of justice should prevail, ensuring that the plaintiff's right to a fair and complete remedy was preserved. The court found that, given the potential quantum of damages and the importance of ensuring the plaintiff's right to a full remedy, the transfer was warranted in the interests of justice. Therefore, the application for the transfer was granted.

In summary, the court held that the transfer of the proceedings from the District Court of New South Wales to the Supreme Court of New South Wales was appropriate, given the potential for damages to exceed the jurisdictional limit of the former. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the plaintiff's right to a complete and fair remedy was not compromised. The final orders of the court included the transfer of the proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and directed that the plaintiff's claim proceed there.

Orders