Robinson v Riverina Equestrian Association - [2022] NSWSC 1613

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Robinson v Riverina Equestrian Association [2022] NSWSC 1613
Hearing dates: 23 November 2022
Date of orders: 23 November 2022
Decision date: 23 November 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
My orders are:
(1) In accordance with the terms of s 76 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) I disapprove of the proposed settlement.
(2) Proposed consent orders may be returned to the parties.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – damages - personal injury – infant’s approval – disapproval of the proposed settlement

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges Act 1995 (Cth)

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Scarlett Anne Robinson BHNF Anthony James Robinson (Plaintiff)
Riverina Equestrian Association (First Defendant)
Equestrian Australia Limited (Second Defendant)
Charles Sturt University (Third Defendant)
Chloe Mannell (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Z Carrigan (Plaintiff)
R Gambi (Defendant)
Solicitors:
LawAdvice Compensation Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Hall and Wilcox (First, Second, Third and Fourth Defendants)

File Number(s): 2022/313256
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

This matter has been listed before me today to seek the Court's approval of a proposed settlement of the proceedings brought on behalf of the plaintiff, who is a legally incapacitated person by virtue of her minority. I will, without disrespect, refer to her by her first given name of Scarlett. Scarlett was only four years old at the date of the accident the subject of these proceedings. She is now nine years of age.
The accident said to give rise to her cause of action occurred on 4 November 2017 when in the company of her mother and other members of her family she attended the New South Wales Country Show Jumping Championship held at the Equestrian Centre, Charles Sturt University at Wagga Wagga. After entering the premises, and while standing beside a roadway in an area designated for the parking of horse floats and the like, a horse ridden by an experienced equestrian was ridden in close proximity to where Scarlett and her mother were standing. Something occurred to “spook” the horse, as it is sometimes put, and it reversed at speed in the direction of the family, who were standing about 10 metres from where the horse commenced its movement colliding with Scarlett and falling on her.
Scarlett suffered severe personal injury consisting of a complex fracture of the base of her skull, which has given rise to not insignificant sequelae. The nature and extent of her original injury and of the disabilities consequent thereon are matters which are the subject of some dispute. Having said that the only material I have seen from the defendants in relation to the medical questions is the neuropsychological report of Mr Cirpiani, to which I will return.
The proposed settlement is in the sum of $XXXXX X plus costs, which have been agreed in the sum of $XXXXX X. From the settlement moneys deductions are required to be made in respect of a charge under the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges Act

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: [2022] NSWSC 1613
Decision Date: 23 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Robinson, brought an action against the Riverina Equestrian Association seeking damages for personal injury. The plaintiff suffered injuries during a riding event organised by the defendant association. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the settlement proposed between the parties was fair and reasonable and if it required the approval of the court. The settlement was to be approved by the plaintiff, who was an infant at the time.

The court had to determine whether the settlement was in the best interests of the infant plaintiff and if it required the court's approval. The court considered the evidence presented, including expert opinions on the plaintiff's injuries and potential future damages. The court also considered the terms of the settlement and whether they were fair and reasonable. Ultimately, the court found that the settlement did not adequately provide for the plaintiff's future needs and was not in her best interests. The court disapproved of the proposed settlement and declined to approve it.

The court ordered that the matter be returned to the parties for further negotiations to reach a settlement that adequately provided for the plaintiff's future needs. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that any settlement approved was in the best interests of the infant plaintiff. The final orders of the court were that the proposed settlement be disapproved and that the matter be returned to the parties to negotiate a new settlement that adequately provided for the plaintiff's future needs.

Orders