Ryan v A F Concrete Pumping Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 723

Ryan v A F Concrete Pumping Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 723

On the evidence before the Court, and without resolving disputed factual matters, it was more likely than not that the first defendant would be found negligent because the concrete line was left unsecured and blown out without proper restraint or catchment, and the first defendant's conduct was identified by the WorkCover summary and expert evidence as deficient. The position of the second defendant was less clear. The first plaintiff's injuries, alleged loss of earning capacity, and economic loss evidence made it more likely than not that he would obtain judgment for substantial damages against the first defendant, well exceeding the $100,000 sought, even allowing for a possible small...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Common Law Personal Injury Damages Proceeding / Interlocutory Notice of Motion for Interim Payment Pursuant to S 82 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005
Outcome
Interim payment ordered against the first defendant; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['interim Payment of Damages' 'industrial Accident' 'concrete Pumping Accident' 'substantial Damages' 'contributory Negligence']
['civil Procedure' 'personal Injury' 'negligence' 'workplace Injury'] ['interim Payment of Damages' 'industrial Accident' 'concrete Pumping Accident' 'substantial Damages' 'contributory Negligence']

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

Common Law Personal Injury Damages Proceeding / Interlocutory Notice of Motion for Interim Payment Pursuant to S 82 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court was satisfied under s 82(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 that, if the proceedings went to trial, the first plaintiff would obtain judgment for substantial damages against a defendant.' 'Whether the evidence showed it was more likely than not that A F Concrete Pumping Pty Ltd would be found negligent.' 'Whether any interim payment should be ordered against the first defendant, the second defendant, or both.' 'Whether $100,000 was no more than a reasonable proportion of the damages likely to be recovered by the first plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence before the Court, and without resolving disputed factual matters, it was more likely than not that the first defendant would be found negligent because the concrete line was left unsecured and blown out without proper restraint or catchment, and the first defendant's conduct was identified by the WorkCover summary and expert evidence as deficient. The position of the second defendant was less clear. The first plaintiff's injuries, alleged loss of earning capacity, and economic loss evidence made it more likely than not that he would obtain judgment for substantial damages against the first defendant, well exceeding the $100,000 sought, even allowing for a possible small...

Court Disposition

Interim payment ordered against the first defendant; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The first defendant is to pay the first plaintiff the sum of $100,000 by way of interim payment pursuant to s 82 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 within 14 days.' 'Costs are reserved.']