Rachel Hobby v Rydges Hotels Limited - [2013] NSWDC 58

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rachel Hobby v Rydges Hotels Limited & Anor [2013] NSWDC 58
Hearing dates: 8-9 April 2013
Decision date: 01 May 2013
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. For orders see para 85

Catchwords: Slip and fall; assessment of damages
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Limitation Act 1969
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Evidence Act 1995
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Cases Cited: Bevillesta Pty Limited v Liberty International Insurance Co [2009] NSWCA 16
Strong v Woolworths Limited (2012) 86 ALJR 267
Matar v Jones [2011] NSWCA 304
Macarthur District Motorcycle Sportmen Inc v Ardizzone [2004] NSWCA 145
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
Kallouf v Middis [2008] NSWCA 61
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Cervantes [2012] NSWCA 244
Pollard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Limited [2008] NSWCA 99
Nominal Defendant v Livaja [2011] NSWCA 121
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rachel Hobby - Plaintiff
Rydges Hotels Ltd - First Defendant
ECS Group (Aust) Pty Ltd - Second Defendant
Representation: Mr A Lidden SC with Mr M Daley - Plaintiff
Mr N Polin - First and Second Defendants
Brydens Law Office LP
McCulloch and Buggy
Norton Rose Australia

File Number(s): 11/122035
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The Plaintiff's Claim

The Plaintiff claims damages for personal injury suffered by her on premises occupied by the Second Defendant, being the Rydges Hotel, Burelli Street, Wollongong on 26 April 2008.

The proceedings have been dismissed by consent against the first defendant. The second defendant, whilst admitting being the occupier of the premises, denies that it was negligent and has pleaded contributory negligence against the plaintiff.

Further, the second defendant has pleaded a defence pursuant to Part 1A, Division 4 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 ("CLA") and in further answer to the plaintiff's claim has pleaded that it is statute barred pursuant to the Limitation Act 1969.

The Limitation Act defence did not loom large in the proceedings. Proceedings had been commenced within time against Rydges Hotels Limited which filed a defence on 26 August 2011 in which it denied that it was the owner and occupier of the Rydges Hotel, inter alia. By letter dated 11 July 2011 (exhibit B) solicitors acting on behalf of Rydges Hotels Limited advised the plaintiff's solicitors that the owner and occupier of the relevant hotel was the second defendant. There was clearly an association between Rydges and the second defendant in that on letterhead entitled "Rydges North Melbourne", a letter was sent from the financial controller of the second defendant to the plaintiff's solicitors dated 8 September 2011 advising the correct address for correspondence (exhibit C).

Senior Counsel for the plaintiff informed the Court that pursuant to s 65 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, the plaintiff's Statement of Claim had been amended to name the correct defendant. Pursuant to s 65(3), an amendment made under that section is taken to have had effect as from the date on which the proceedings…

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 Rachel Hobby v Rydges Hotels 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: [2013] NSWDC 58
Decision Date: 01 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rachel Hobby v Rydges Hotels Limited, the plaintiff, Ms Hobby, sought compensation for injuries sustained in a slip and fall incident that occurred at the defendant's hotel. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Ms Hobby alleged that the injuries she suffered were due to the defendant's negligence in maintaining a safe environment for its guests, specifically due to a slippery floor in the hotel's foyer.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the extent of the defendant's liability for the injuries, and the appropriate assessment of damages for the plaintiff. The court needed to consider the principles of negligence and occupiers' liability, as well as the statutory provisions governing damages in personal injury cases. The central question was whether the defendant's failure to prevent the slip and fall incident constituted a breach of their duty of care, and if so, what the appropriate compensation should be for Ms Hobby's injuries.

The court found that the defendant was indeed negligent in failing to maintain a safe environment, as there was evidence that the defendant was aware of the slippery conditions but did not take adequate steps to rectify the issue. The court considered the severity and impact of Ms Hobby's injuries, including her medical expenses, loss of income, and ongoing pain and suffering. In assessing the damages, the court applied the relevant provisions of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), taking into account the statutory guidelines for general damages. Ultimately, the court awarded the plaintiff a verdict and judgment in her favour, with specific orders detailed in paragraph 85 of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. For orders see para 85

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:	Rachel Hobby v Rydges Hotels Limited & Anor [2013] NSWDC 58
Hearing dates:	8-9 April 2013
Decision date:	01 May 2013
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. For orders see para 85
Catchwords:	Slip and fall; assessment of damages
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 Limitation Act 1969 Civil Procedure Act 2005 Evidence Act 1995 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Cases Cited:	Bevillesta Pty Limited v Liberty International Insurance Co [2009] NSWCA 16 Strong v Woolworths Limited (2012) 86 ALJR 267 Matar v Jones [2011] NSWCA 304 Macarthur District Motorcycle Sportmen Inc v Ardizzone [2004] NSWCA 145 Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201 Kallouf v Middis [2008] NSWCA 61 Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Cervantes [2012] NSWCA 244 Pollard v Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Limited [2008] NSWCA 99 Nominal Defendant v Livaja [2011] NSWCA 121
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Rachel Hobby - Plaintiff Rydges Hotels Ltd - First Defendant ECS Group (Aust) Pty Ltd - Second Defendant
Representation:	Mr A Lidden SC with Mr M Daley - Plaintiff Mr N Polin - First and Second Defendants Brydens Law Office LP McCulloch and Buggy Norton Rose Australia
File Number(s):	11/122035
Publication restriction:	Nil