Robinson v Riverina Equestrian Association - [2025] NSWSC 772

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Robinson v Riverina Equestrian Association [2025] NSWSC 772
Hearing dates: 02 July 2025
Date of orders: 02 July 2025
Decision date: 02 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
(1) The issue of liability is to be heard and determined separately in advance of the issue of quantum pursuant to r 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
(2) The parties are to bear their own costs of the motion.
(3) Confirm the date of the next mention before the Registrar for directions on 24 July 2025.

Catchwords:
CIVIL LAW – separate determination of issue of liability – where toddler injured when kicked by horse at show-jumping event – where plaintiff’s injuries unlikely to stabilise for many years – quantum uncertain until that time – where liability in issue – where memories of witness will fade – relevant consideration – whether potential savings illusionary – order for separation of issues made

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 28.2, 29.4

Cases Cited:
Crawley v Vero InsuranceLtd [2012] NSWSC 593
El Chami v Mackie [2019] NSWSC 821
Robinson v Riverina Equestrian Association [2022] NSWSC 1613
Southwell v Bennett [2010] NSWSC 1372

Texts Cited:
N/A

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Scarlett Anne Robinson bnhf Anthony James Robinson (Plaintiff)
Riverina Equestrain Association (First Defendant)
Equestrian Australian Limited (Second Defendant)
Charles Sturt University (Third Defendant)
Chloe Mannell (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Andrews (Plaintiff)
J Sexton SC and Reno Gambi (Defendants)
Solicitors:
LawAdvice Compensation Lawyers (Plaintiff)
DWF Law (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2020/00313256
Publication restriction: N/A

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

By notice of motion filed on 14 February 2025, the four defendants seek an order under r 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) that the issue of liability be heard separately and in advance of the issue of quantum. The basis of the application is that the young plaintiff, who was kicked by a horse at a show jumping event in 2017, has injuries, the extent of which will not be able to be properly assessed for several years. The defendants also rely on delays which have beset the case and the impact of that delay on the witnesses’ memories and their psychological and emotional wellbeing. The plaintiff neither consents to, nor opposes, such an order being made. However, the plaintiff raises a significant matter concerning one of the witnesses, that is, the plaintiff’s mother, and submits, somewhat faintly, that the better course may be to refer the whole of the matter for mediation.
The notice of motion is supported by an affidavit of the defendants’ solicitor which annexes a significant amount of lay and expert evidence. The parties filed a joint application book, and that included helpful written submissions prepared by junior counsel for the defendants and counsel for the plaintiff. The defendants are represented by senior counsel on the brief hearing this morning.
A loose chronology of relevant events and the course of the…

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 Robinson v Riverina Equestrian Association 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: [2025] NSWSC 772
Decision Date: 02 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Robinson v Riverina Equestrian Association, the plaintiff, a young child, suffered injuries when she was kicked by a horse during a show-jumping event. The case was brought before the court to determine whether the defendant, the Riverina Equestrian Association, was liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was tasked with deciding whether the issues of liability and quantum should be determined separately. The plaintiff's injuries were not expected to stabilise for several years, and the extent of her injuries and resulting damages were uncertain. The court had to consider whether the potential savings from a separate determination of liability would be illusory, given the fading memories of witnesses and the uncertain nature of the plaintiff's injuries.

The court found that the issues of liability and quantum should indeed be determined separately. The court noted that the plaintiff's injuries were unlikely to stabilise for many years, and her memories and those of the witnesses would fade over time. The court concluded that the potential savings from a separate determination of liability were not illusory, and ordered that the issues be determined separately. The court's decision recognised the importance of preserving evidence and the potential difficulties in determining damages at a later date.

The court's order for the separate determination of liability and quantum was made to ensure that the issues were resolved in a timely and effective manner. The court recognised that the plaintiff's injuries were unlikely to stabilise for many years, and that the memories of witnesses would fade over time. By ordering a separate determination of liability, the court aimed to preserve evidence and ensure that the issues were resolved in a manner that was fair and just for both parties.

Orders