Trajkovski v Ballgate Pty Limited

Case [2018] NSWDC 308


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Trajkovski v Ballgate Pty Limited [2018] NSWDC 308
Hearing dates: 16, 17, 18 October 2018
Date of orders: 26 October 2018
Decision date: 26 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Russell SC DCJ
Decision:

(1)   Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $43,681.20.
(2)   Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.
(3)   Grant leave to the parties to approach my Associate within seven days if either party seeks a different costs order.

Catchwords:

TORTS – negligence – plaintiff stepped on broken glass at hotel causing injury to foot

 

TORTS – negligence – duty – risk of harm – foreseeability – risk not insignificant – precautions against risk of harm – burden of taking precautions – causation

  DAMAGES – non-economic loss – past out-of-pocket expenses – past economic loss and future loss of earning capacity
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Adeels Palace Pty Limited v Moubarak [2009] HCA 48; (2009) 239 CLR 420
Australian Safeways Stores Pty Limited v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7; (1987) 162 CLR 479
Benmax v Austin Motor Co Limited [1955] AC 370
Bunnings Group Ltd v Giudice [2018] NSWCA 144
Derrick v Cheung [2001] HCA 48; (2001) 181 ALR 301
Fallas v Mourlas [2006] NSWCA 32; (2006) 65 NSWLR 418
Francis v Lewis [2003] NSWCA 152
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Limited v Ryan [2002] HCA 54; (2002) 211 CLR 540
Hackshaw v Shaw [1984] HCA 84; (1984) 155 CLR 614
Jackson v McDonald’s Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162
Jones v Bartlett [2000] HCA 56; (2000) 205 CLR 166
Kocis v SE Dickens Pty Limited [1998] 3 VR 408
Mobbs v Kain [2009] NSWCA 301; (2009) 54 MVR 179
Neindorf v Junkovic [2005] HCA 75
Reid v Commercial Club (Albury) Limited [2014] NSWCA 98
Roads & Traffic Authority (NSW) v Dederer [2007] HCA 42; (2007) 234 CLR 330
Shirt v Wyong Shire Council [1978] 1 NSWLR 631
Strong v Woolworths Limited [2012] HCA 5; (2012) 246 CLR 182
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; (2005) 223 CLR 422
Wilkinson v Law Courts Limited [2001] NSWCA 196
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Dusko Trajkovski (Plaintiff)
Ballgate Pty Limited t/as “The Grand Hotel, Rockdale” (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
M K Rollinson (Plaintiff)
R Gambi (Defendant)

  Solicitors:
Justice Lawyers (plaintiff)
McCabe Curwood (defendant)
File Number(s): 2016/384919

Judgment

Introduction

  1. By a Statement of Claim filed on 22 December 2016 the plaintiff sought damages from the defendant in negligence. The plaintiff alleged that he was a patron at The Grand Hotel at Rockdale, which was operated by the defendant, on 15 January 2014. He alleged that on that day there was a piece of broken glass on the ground at the hotel and he trod on it.

  2. By its Defence filed on 2 February 2018 the defendant admitted owing a duty of care to entrants on its premises but did not admit that the plaintiff stepped on broken glass…

Continue reading Trajkovski v Ballgate Pty Limited

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Trajkovski v Ballgate Pty Limited [2018] NSWDC 308
Case
[2018] NSWDC 308
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Trajkovski v Ballgate Pty Limited, the plaintiff suffered an injury to his foot after stepping on broken glass at a hotel operated by the defendant. The dispute centred around whether the defendant had breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, leading to the plaintiff’s injuries. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary legal issues were whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, whether the risk of harm was foreseeable and not insignificant, and if the defendant had taken reasonable precautions against such harm. Additionally, the court considered whether the injury caused by the broken glass was a direct result of the defendant's negligence.

The court found that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as a hotel guest. The risk of guests encountering broken glass was deemed foreseeable and not insignificant. The defendant had failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent such an occurrence, despite the relative ease of implementing measures to address the risk. The court concluded that the plaintiff's injury was a direct result of the defendant's negligence. Regarding damages, the plaintiff was awarded compensation for past out-of-pocket expenses, past economic loss, and future loss of earning capacity.

Following the determination of liability and damages, the court ordered judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of $43,681.20. The defendant was further ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs. The court also granted leave to the parties to approach an Associate within seven days if either party sought a different costs order. This decision underscores the importance of hotels maintaining safe environments for their guests and the legal consequences of failing to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $43,681.20.

(2) Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

(3) Grant leave to the parties to approach my Associate within seven days if either party seeks a different costs order.

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.