Stambolziovski v Nestorovic and Camanaro Prestige Properties Pty Ltd t/as Sydneyhome Real Estate
Case
•
[2015] NSWCA 332
•28 October 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Stambolziovski v Nestorovic and Camanaro Prestige Properties Pty Ltd t/as Sydneyhome Real Estate [2015] NSWCA 332
[2015] NSWCA 332
28 October 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Ms. Stambolziovski, brought proceedings against the respondents, Mr. Nestorovic and Camanaro Prestige Properties Pty Ltd trading as Sydneyhome Real Estate, alleging personal injury resulting from a slip and fall. The dispute concerned whether the respondents had breached their duty of care by failing to repair an allegedly leaking toilet, and whether water from this leak caused the appellant to fall and sustain injuries. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in their findings regarding the cause of the water on the ground, specifically whether it originated from a leaking toilet. Further, the court considered whether the primary judge erred in failing to draw a *Ferrcom* inference against the respondents, in their findings as to the credit of witnesses, and in their use of a prior inconsistent statement made by a witness.
The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's findings. It was determined that the primary judge was entitled to conclude that the water on the ground did not originate from a leaking toilet, and therefore no breach of duty by the respondents was established. The court found no error in the primary judge's assessment of witness credit and their use of the prior inconsistent statement. Consequently, the primary judge's refusal to draw a *Ferrcom* inference was also deemed appropriate.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in their findings regarding the cause of the water on the ground, specifically whether it originated from a leaking toilet. Further, the court considered whether the primary judge erred in failing to draw a *Ferrcom* inference against the respondents, in their findings as to the credit of witnesses, and in their use of a prior inconsistent statement made by a witness.
The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's findings. It was determined that the primary judge was entitled to conclude that the water on the ground did not originate from a leaking toilet, and therefore no breach of duty by the respondents was established. The court found no error in the primary judge's assessment of witness credit and their use of the prior inconsistent statement. Consequently, the primary judge's refusal to draw a *Ferrcom* inference was also deemed appropriate.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Evidence
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Breach
-
Causation
-
Duty of Care
-
Negligence
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Faruk v Sydney Airport Corporation Limited and Asset Link Services Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 206
Cases Citing This Decision
7
Nevenka Dmitrovic v Branka Kleut
[2024] NSWSC 1541
White v White By Her Tutor the NSW Trustee and Guardian
[2024] NSWSC 222
Cases Cited
15
Statutory Material Cited
3
Jones v Dunkel
[1959] HCA 8
Jones v Dunkel
[1959] HCA 8
Luxton v Vines
[1952] HCA 19