Rigby v Shellharbour City Council - [2003] NSWSC 877

CITATION: Rigby v Shellharbour City Council [2003] NSWSC 877

HEARING DATE(S): 22 September 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 September 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

DECISION: Expert's reports rejected in present form - some other material ruled irrelevant

CATCHWORDS: Evidence - relevance - BMX track - earlier fatal accident at same track - forseeability of harm - Evidence - expert's opinion/reports - need for report and evidence to expose reasoning showing how expert opinion based on specialized knowledge training or experience

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 ss59, 63, 64, 67, 68, 135, 136
Supreme Court Rules Pt 36 r13D

CASES CITED: Davey v Lord Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the City of Edinburgh 1953 SC 34
Makita (Australia) Pty Limited v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305, 52 NSWLR 705
Ocean Marine Mutual Association (Europe) OV v Jetopay Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1463
R v Rose [2002] NSWCCA 455, 55 NSWLR 701

PARTIES :
Rhiannon Rigby by her tutor Carole Lynne Rigby v
Shellharbour City Council - First Defendant
Southlake BMX Club Incorporated - Second Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20724/01

COUNSEL: P Webb QC & J G Stewart - Plaintiff
M J Joseph SC & S P W Glascott - First Defendant
D L Davies SC & K M Guilfoyle - Second Defendant

SOLICITORS: Lough & Wells Lawyers - Plaintiff
Phillips Fox Lawyers - First Defendant
Ebsworth & Ebsworth Solicitors - Second Defendant

- 5 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

DUNFORD J

WEDNESDAY 24 SEPTEMBER 2003

20724/01 RHIANNON RIGBY BY HER TUTOR CAROLE LYNNE RIGBY v SHELLHARBOUR CITY COUNCIL & ANOR

JUDGMENT (

1 HIS HONOUR: Objection has been taken to a number of documents contained in a folder relating to liability, tendered by the plaintiff.

2 The folder consists of 4 sections, described as follows:

3 Objection is taken, firstly, to the material in section B, relating to the death of the late Mr Byrne, on the grounds of (a) relevance and (b) that much, if not all, of the material is hearsay within the provisions of s 59 of the Evidence Act1995.

4 In relation to this latter aspect, the evidence is tendered on the basis that it is admissible under ss 63 and/or 64 of the Act. In both cases, notice is required pursuant to s 67, and the time for giving notice is fixed by the Supreme Court Rules Pt 36 r 13D whilst s 68 provides for objections to be notified.

5 I am informed that, although notice of a kind was given pursuant to s 67, such notice was out of time, but the defendants have given notice of objection pursuant to s 68, and it is not pressed that the defendants will suffer any unfair prejudice arising out of the late service of the notices under s 67. I am…

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 Rigby v Shellharbour City Council

Details

AGLC: Rigby v Shellharbour City Council [2003] NSWSC 877
Case: [2003] NSWSC 877
Decision Date: 24 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rigby v Shellharbour City Council involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Rigby, and the defendant, Shellharbour City Council. Mr. Rigby sought damages for injuries he sustained while riding his bicycle at a BMX track owned and operated by the Council. The central issue was whether the Council had fulfilled its duty of care in maintaining the track, which resulted in Mr. Rigby's injuries. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the relevance of evidence regarding a previous fatal accident at the same track, the foreseeability of harm in such circumstances, and the necessity of expert evidence to substantiate the plaintiff's claims. A key question was whether the expert's opinion on the maintenance standards of the track and the foreseeability of injuries should be admissible, and if it sufficiently demonstrated the Council's breach of duty.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the evidence presented and considered whether the Council could reasonably have foreseen the risk of harm despite the absence of a prior accident of the same kind. The court also assessed the expert's report to ensure it adequately explained how the opinion was grounded in specialized knowledge and experience. Ultimately, the court found that the evidence of the previous accident and the expert's report were relevant and sufficient to establish that the Council had failed to maintain the track to a standard that would prevent foreseeable harm. The court held the Council liable for the injuries sustained by Mr. Rigby.

The final orders of the court included the determination that the Council was liable for damages, with specific amounts to be assessed in subsequent proceedings. The court also ruled that the evidence presented, including the expert's report, was admissible and sufficient to support the plaintiff's claims.

Orders