Ruttley v Edwards - [2013] NSWSC 768

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ruttley v Edwards [2013] NSWSC 768
Hearing dates: 13 June 2013
Decision date: 14 June 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
1. Defendants' notice of motion dismissed.
2. Order that the costs of the motion be the plaintiff's costs in the proceedings.
3. Direct that there be a separate hearing on the question of liability.
4. Grant liberty to the parties forthwith to approach the list manager to arrange a hearing date.
5. Grant liberty to the parties to apply to me on 2 days' notice for directions if required by arrangement with my Associate.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - application for separate determination of issues - no utility in making order - separate trial on liability ordered
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 28.2
Civil Liability Act 2002
Cases Cited: Lesandu Blacktown Pty Ltd v Gonzalez [2013] NSWCA 8
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61; (2000) 205 CLR 254
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Barry Charles Ruttley (Plaintiff)
Richard Dennis Edwards (First Defendant)
Deborah Edwards (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
B Dooley SC & D Morgan (Plaintiff)
S Kettle (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2012/186847
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: By his statement of claim filed in this Court on 14 June 2012, Mr Ruttley claims damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered by him in the following circumstances. On 16 August 2009, Mr Ruttley was present upon premises located in Kempsey known as the United Service Station and Kempsey Fast Food. The defendants conducted their business at and from those premises. Mr Ruttley went there in the evening to have a meal.

At approximately 11.30pm on that night, Robert Dickson and William Morris arrived at the service station and entered the restaurant. They proceeded among other things to assault Mr Ruttley and to rob him of the contents of his wallet. This was no doubt a frightening and distressing experience for Mr Ruttley who now claims to suffer from a series of disabilities, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. He alleges that a long series of continuing psychological and related problems that still afflict him were caused as a result of this incident.

The foundation of Mr Ruttley's claim is that the defendants owed him a duty of care as a patron or invitee upon the premises to take care of his safety and presumably to take all reasonable steps to protect him from incidents such as the one that occurred. The breach of that duty is alleged to consist in the defendants' failure to ensure that a security door that was installed in circumstances described as "to protect the safety of customers" was not opened when Mr Ruttley's assailants arrived. It is alleged that an employee of the defendants actually caused the security door to be opened so as to give access to Mr Ruttley's assailants when they appeared at the door armed with a tomahawk. A series of cognate formulations 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 Ruttley v Edwards 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] NSWSC 768
Decision Date: 14 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ruttley v Edwards was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute between the parties involved issues related to liability for damages, specifically regarding the extent of damages awarded and the liability for those damages. The case arose from an accident in which the plaintiff, Ruttley, claimed damages against the defendant, Edwards, who was alleged to be responsible for causing the accident.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether a separate trial on the issue of liability was necessary and whether there was any utility in making such an order. The court considered whether a bifurcation of the trial would serve the interests of justice and facilitate a more efficient resolution of the matter.

In delivering the judgment, the court determined that there was no utility in making an order for a separate trial on the issue of liability. The court reasoned that the claims were interconnected, and separating the issues of liability and damages would not expedite the proceedings or provide clarity. Instead, the court ordered a separate trial on the issue of liability, while maintaining that the damages issue would be addressed in the same trial. This decision was made to ensure that the trial proceeded in an orderly and effective manner, considering the interconnectedness of the claims.

The court's final order was that a separate trial on the issue of liability would be conducted, while the issue of damages would be determined during the same trial. This approach aimed to balance the need for efficiency in the proceedings with the requirement to address all relevant issues comprehensively.

Orders