Farriss v Axford (No 3) [2022] NSWSC 20

Farriss v Axford (No 3) [2022] NSWSC 20

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants breached their duty of care or that the system was defective such that reasonable care required the installation of further componentry, or that any failure to warn or instruct caused the accident. The most probable explanation was that the plaintiff himself inadvertently activated the winch by stepping on the deck button, resulting in the injury, and not any actionable negligence or breach by the defendants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants. Plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs. Liberty to apply for further costs orders.
Legal Topics
['duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'damages' 'contractual Indemnity' 'recreational Services' 'boat Accident' 'economic Loss' 'non Economic Loss' 'australian Consumer Law']
['tort Law' 'negligence' 'consumer Law'] ['duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'damages' 'contractual Indemnity' 'recreational Services' 'boat Accident' 'economic Loss' 'non Economic Loss' 'australian Consumer Law']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the accident was caused by defendants' failure to take reasonable care or breach of statutory guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law" 'Whether the defendants were liable in negligence or under the ACL for the plaintiff’s injuries' "Whether any breach of duty or failure in warning, instructing, or provision of safe equipment was causally related to the plaintiff's injuries" 'Assessment of damages if liability established']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants breached their duty of care or that the system was defective such that reasonable care required the installation of further componentry, or that any failure to warn or instruct caused the accident. The most probable explanation was that the plaintiff himself inadvertently activated the winch by stepping on the deck button, resulting in the injury, and not any actionable negligence or breach by the defendants.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants. Plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs. Liberty to apply for further costs orders.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the defendants.' "Plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs." 'Liberty to apply should any other costs order be sought.']