Ryan v McDonalds Australia Ltd - [2017] NSWSC 1508

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ryan v McDonalds Australia Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1508
Hearing dates: 6 October 2017
Date of orders: 06 October 2017
Decision date: 08 November 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
(1) District Court Proceedings No 2002/95072 be transferred to the Supreme Court pursuant to s 140(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
(2) Costs are reserved.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – transfer of proceedings – transfer from District Court to Supreme Court – jurisdictional limit – where Respondent’s maximum estimate will likely exceed jurisdictional limit
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 140
Cases Cited: Cubrilo v Veljovic [2015] NSWSC 367
Younes v QIC Ltd t/as Westpoint Blacktown [2012] NSWSC 451
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Shannon Anne Ryan (Plaintiff)
McDonalds Australia Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Eagle (Plaintiff)
M Hutchings (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Pryor Tzannes & Wallis (Plaintiff)
Sparke Helmore (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2017/284119
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 6 October 2017, I made an order for transfer of these proceedings from the District Court to this Court pursuant to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 140(1). Due to time constraints, I reserved my reasons for making that decision. These are my reasons.
The proceedings concern a head injury suffered by the Plaintiff when she was 5 years old. It is alleged that the injury occurred on 15 November 2001 when the Plaintiff slipped on greasy floor at McDonalds Caringbah and hit her face on a marble table.
The Plaintiff is now 21 years old. The evidence upon which she relied outlines a history of problems consistent with frontal lobe damage including severe headaches, personality change due to brain injury, severe mood swings, dysregulation of emotion, behaviour and cognition, lapses in cognitive function and resultant inability to complete her schooling and maintain employment.
The proceedings were commenced in March 2002. The Defendant has denied liability and pleads contributory negligence. The Defendant also declined, in its Defence, to consent to extended jurisdiction. The Defendant also, for the purposes of this application, takes the view that the proper assessment of the available expert evidence suggests a lower damages figure than that suggested by the Plaintiff.
The proceedings have had a very chequered history over the last 15 years, including multiple amendments to the statement of claim, the last as recent as August 2017, and repeated last minute adjournments of hearings with poor explanations. This has resulted in multiple costs orders having been made against the Plaintiff’s tutor.
This application for transfer has necessitated the vacation of yet another hearing date which was listed for 30 October 2017 in the District Court.

Relevant legal principles

Section 140 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) provides relevantly as follows:

140 Transfer of proceedings to higher court
(1) The Supreme Court may, of its own motion or on application by a party to proceedings before the District Court or the Local Court, order that the proceedings, including any cross-claim in the proceedings, be transferred to…

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 Ryan v McDonalds Australia Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ryan v McDonalds Australia Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1508
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1508
Decision Date: 08 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between Ryan and McDonald's Australia Limited, which was initially heard in the District Court. The nature of the dispute centred on claims made by Ryan against McDonald's Australia Limited, with the specific claims and their merits not detailed in the text. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Supreme Court, raising questions about the appropriateness of such a transfer based on the jurisdictional limit of the District Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the transfer of the proceedings from the District Court to the Supreme Court was justified given that the respondent's maximum estimate of damages was likely to exceed the jurisdictional limit of the District Court. This issue required the court to consider the jurisdictional constraints applicable to the District Court and whether the potential claim value warranted a transfer to a higher court.

The court's reasoning focused on the jurisdictional limit of the District Court and the likelihood that the respondent's claim would exceed this limit. By assessing the respondent's maximum estimate of damages, the court determined that the potential claim value indeed surpassed the jurisdictional threshold of the District Court. Consequently, the transfer to the Supreme Court was deemed appropriate to ensure the matter could be heard within a court that had the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate on the claim. The outcome was that the transfer was upheld, allowing the proceedings to continue in the Supreme Court.

Orders