Sanchez-Sidiropoulos v Canavan

Case [2016] NSWCA 221


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Sanchez-Sidiropoulos v Canavan [2016] NSWCA 221
Hearing dates:15 August 2016
Date of orders: 15 August 2016
Decision date: 24 August 2016
Before: Beazley ACJ at [1];
Basten JA at [2];
Payne JA at [45]
Decision:

(1)   Refuse leave to file the second further amended notice of appeal.

 

(2)   Dismiss the appeal with costs.

 (3)   Order that the solicitor for the appellant, Mr J P Capsanis, personally pay the costs of preparation of the orange book in a sum not exceeding $500 including GST.
Catchwords:

APPEAL – leave to amend grounds of appeal out of time – whether prejudice to respondent – whether reasonable prospect of success based on proposed new ground – whether prejudice to appellant if not allowed to pursue proposed amended grounds

 

TORTS – negligence – personal injury – collision causing injury during physical education warm-up game – adequacy of instructions – game played on asphalt surface – age of players – manner in which game played

  TORTS – causation – risk of playing on asphalt surface – injury not materialisation of risk
Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Jade Sanchez-Sidiropoulos (Appellant)
Brother Kelvin Canavan (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr A D Crossland (Appellant)
Mr A C Bridge / Mr C P O’Neill (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
J P Capsanis & Co (Appellant)
Makinson D’Apice Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):2015/260246
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction:
Common Law Division
Citation:
[2015] NSWSC 1139
Date of Decision:
14 August 2015
Before:
Schmidt J
File Number(s):
2009/297447

Judgment

  1. BEAZLEY ACJ: I agree with Basten JA.

  2. BASTEN JA: In June 2005 the appellant, Jade Sanchez-Sidiropoulos, then 10 years of age, was a student at St Joachim’s Primary School in Lidcombe. On 16 June 2005 she fell and injured her wrist whilst playing a game of tag, after colliding with another player. In April 2009 she commenced proceedings against the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney, claiming damages in negligence.

  3. By an amended statement of claim, filed on 17 April 2014, the Trustees were removed as the defendant and the matter went to trial with Brother Kelvin Canavan sued as the owner of the land and the person with care, control and management of the School. The case came on for trial before Schmidt J in the Common Law Division. It ran for four days in December 2014 and three days in March 2015. Schmidt J dismissed the claim. [1] The judge held that there was no breach of the duty of care owed by the School to the appellant. The judge nevertheless assessed the damages which would have been payable in the event that negligence had been established. She found that no damages compensable under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) had been established.

The appeal

  1. The appellant’s lawyers have struggled to identify grounds of…

Continue reading Sanchez-Sidiropoulos v Canavan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sanchez-Sidiropoulos v Canavan [2016] NSWCA 221
Case
[2016] NSWCA 221
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Sanchez-Sidiropoulos v Canavan* concerned a personal injury claim arising from a collision during a physical education warm-up game. The appellant, the injured student, sought leave to amend their grounds of appeal out of time. The respondent was the school. The appeal was heard by Beazley ACJ, Basten and Payne JJA.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether to grant the appellant leave to amend their grounds of appeal out of time, considering the prejudice to the respondent and the reasonable prospect of success of the proposed new grounds, and conversely, the prejudice to the appellant if leave were refused. The court also had to consider the substantive issues of negligence, including the adequacy of instructions given for the game, the suitability of the asphalt playing surface, the age of the players, and the manner in which the game was conducted. Furthermore, the court was required to determine issues of causation, specifically whether the injury sustained was a materialisation of the risk posed by playing on an asphalt surface.

The court refused leave to file the second further amended notice of appeal. In reaching this decision, the court considered the prejudice to the respondent and the appellant's prospects of success on the proposed amended grounds. The appeal was subsequently dismissed.

The court ordered that leave to file the second further amended notice of appeal be refused, and that the appeal be dismissed with costs. Additionally, the court ordered that the solicitor for the appellant personally pay the costs of the preparation of the orange book, up to a sum not exceeding $500 including GST.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Refuse leave to file the second further amended notice of appeal.

(2) Dismiss the appeal with costs.

(3) Order that the solicitor for the appellant, Mr J P Capsanis, personally pay the costs of preparation of the orange book in a sum not exceeding $500 including GST.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.