Pillinger v Lismore City Council - [2014] NSWSC 447

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pillinger v Lismore City Council [2014] NSWSC 447
Hearing dates: 2 - 6, 9 - 13 July 2012; 3 - 7, 10 - 11 December 2012
Decision date: 16 April 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant and the third defendant in the sum of $1,170,000.
(2) Contribution in the liability pursuant to order 1 at 60% in the case of the third defendant and 40% in the case of the first defendant.
(3) Judgment for the first defendant against the third defendant on the cross-claim of the first defendant.
(4) Dismiss the cross-claim of the third defendant against the first defendant.
(5) The parties are to formulate draft orders, as necessary, further to the above orders, and in accordance with my reasons for judgment.
(6) The parties are to formulate draft orders with regard to costs and other ancillary matters in accordance with the above orders.
(7) The parties have liberty to approach my Associate in order to obtain a date for the determination of the further orders referred to in orders 5 and 6.

Catchwords: TORTS - negligence - motorcyclist injured after driving over loose material on newly resurfaced road - whether parties responsible for conducting roadworks negligent - application of Part 5 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 - cross-claim between defendants - interpretation of contract - contributory negligence - contribution between defendants pursuant to s 5 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946.
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 5E, 5D, 5F, 5H, 42, 43A, 45
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s140
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW), s 5
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 (NSW), s 9(1)(b)
Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australian Performing Rights Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99
Benic v New South Wales [2010] NSWSC 1039
Bitumen and Oil Refiners (Aust) Ltd v Brodie v Singleton Shire Council [2001] HCA 29; 206 CLR 512
Commissioner for Government Transport [1955] HCA 1; 92 CLR 200
Council of the Shire of Wyong v Shirt and Others (1979) 146 CLR 40
Erect Safe Scaffolding (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sutton and Another [2008] NSWCA 114; 72 NSWLR 1
Firth v Latham & Ors [2007] NSWCA 40
Garzo v Liverpool/ Campbelltown Christian School [2012] NSWCA 151
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; 101 CLR 298
North Sydney Council v Roman [2007] NSWCA 27, 69 NSWLR 240
Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10
Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Limited [1985] HCA 34; 59 ALJR 492
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW, Council of the Shire of Evans and Pioneer Road Services Pty Ltd v Palmer [2003] NSWCA 58
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer (2007) HCA 42; 234 CLR 330
Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Refrigerated Roadways Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 263; 77 NSWLR 360
Short & Anor…

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 Pillinger v Lismore City Council 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: [2014] NSWSC 447
Decision Date: 16 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Pillinger v Lismore City Council was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, a motorcyclist, sustained injuries after driving over loose material on a newly resurfaced road. The case involved determining whether the parties responsible for conducting the roadworks were negligent and, if so, to what extent they were liable. Additionally, the case required interpretation of contractual obligations between the parties and consideration of contributory negligence and contribution between defendants. The court was tasked with applying relevant statutory provisions, including Part 5 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 and section 5 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946.

The court had to decide several key legal issues. First, it had to determine whether the defendants, responsible for the roadworks, were negligent in their conduct, as defined under the Civil Liability Act. This involved assessing the standard of care expected from them and whether they breached this standard. Secondly, the court needed to interpret the contractual obligations between the parties to understand their respective duties and liabilities. Thirdly, it had to evaluate the extent of the plaintiff's contributory negligence, if any, which might reduce the defendants' liability. Finally, the court had to consider the potential for contribution between the defendants under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, if one defendant was found to be more liable than the other.

In its judgment, the court found that the defendants were indeed negligent in their handling of the roadworks, leading to the plaintiff's injuries. The court emphasised that the defendants had a duty to ensure that the road was safe for use and that they failed to meet this standard. Regarding the contractual obligations, the court determined that the contract did not absolve the defendants of their general duty of care. The court also found the plaintiff to be partially contributory negligent, reducing the overall damages recoverable from the defendants. Lastly, the court ruled that there would be no contribution between the defendants, as the negligence was joint and several, and each defendant remained fully liable for the plaintiff's damages.

The final orders of the court were that the defendants were liable for the plaintiff's damages, reduced by the extent of the plaintiff's contributory negligence. The court awarded the plaintiff a specified amount in damages and ordered the defendants to pay this sum. The defendants were held jointly and severally liable, meaning the plaintiff could pursue the full amount from either defendant. No contribution was ordered between the defendants, each remaining fully liable for the entire judgment amount.

Orders