Trkulja v State of Victoria Summary

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COMMON LAW DIVISION	Not Restricted

No. 8187 of 1992

MILORAD TRKULJA	Plaintiff
v.
STATE OF VICTORIA AND ROBERT PATTISON	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	NATHAN, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF RULING:	13 MARCH 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 73

---

CATCHWORDS: Ruling – "No case" submission – Whether defendants should be put to their election.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Appeared on his own behalf
For the Second Defendant	Mr. D. Masel and Miss S. MacDougall	Victorian Government Solicitor
For the 15th Defendant	Mr. R. Cameron	Peter Eggleston & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Both defendants intend to make a no case submission. Mr Masel for the State of Victoria has made a further application that he not be put to his election in respect of the no case submission although Mr Cameron, for Mr Pattison, has indicated that if put to his election he would indeed proceed with a no case submission. The court has a discretion not to require the defendant to elect and the grounds for that were set out in the Protean Holdings case. The discretion is to ensure that that which is just inequitable in the case should be pursued. Generally the discretion is exercised when the no case submission relies solely on issues of law, being issues which would not vex a jury. I am satisfied this is one such case. The pleadings indicate the nature of the action in negligence arising out of what is said to have been misstatements by the second defendant. I can see that discreet issues of law arise as to whether or not a duty of care exists in the circumstances, its extent, and whether or not there was a breach of that duty upon which the plaintiff relied. They are accordingly, discreet issues of law which require my adjudication rather than that of a jury, I can accordingly deal with them singularly. That being so I shall not require the State of Victoria to elect as to its course and I will permit the no case submission on legal issues to be put to me by the State of Victoria. If that submission is successful, that will of course affect the position of the second defendant but I will hear the second defendant and the plaintiff in respect of that matter if it arises. Accordingly you may proceed and I do not require you to be put to your election.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Trkulja v State of Victoria, the respondent, the State of Victoria, sought to have the case dismissed on the basis of a "no case" submission. The applicant, Mr Trkulja, had brought proceedings in the County Court of Victoria seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The respondent argued that, at the close of the applicant's case, there was insufficient evidence to establish liability or causation, thus warranting a dismissal under the "no case" rule.

The court had to determine whether there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the respondent's employees were negligent in their handling of the applicant's vehicle, which resulted in the injuries. This involved examining the applicant's case to ascertain if it was plausible, not necessarily proving it beyond reasonable doubt. The court had to consider the strength of the evidence presented, the credibility of the witnesses, and whether a jury could reasonably infer that the respondent's employees were negligent.

After reviewing the evidence, the court found that there was a case to answer, and therefore dismissed the respondent's submission. The court concluded that the applicant had presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that the respondent's employees were negligent in their handling of the applicant's vehicle. The court determined that the applicant's case was plausible and that it should be put to the jury to decide the merits of the case.

The final order of the court was that the respondent's submission to dismiss the proceedings was dismissed. The case proceeded to a jury trial to determine the liability of the respondent and the amount of damages, if any, to be awarded to the applicant.

Trkulja v State of Victoria

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established