MACKINNON v. THE PROPRIETORS STRATA PLAN NO. 14311 [2000] NSWCA 81

MACKINNON v. THE PROPRIETORS STRATA PLAN NO. 14311 [2000] NSWCA 81

The material entitled the trial judge to conclude that, although a reasonable person in the second respondent's position would have realised there was a risk that a visitor might fail to see the step and be injured, the magnitude of the risk was very low and nothing further reasonably needed to be done beyond the existing lighting; therefore the negligence appeal failed. The costs discretion miscarried because the District Court gave no reasons for departing from the general rule that costs follow the event, so the second respondent's cross-appeal on costs succeeded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Negligence Occupier's Liability Personal Injury Claim and Costs Dispute / Appeal From District Court Judgment and Application for Leave to Cross Appeal on Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to cross-appeal granted; cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['negligence' "occupier's Liability" 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'costs Follow the Event' 'cross Appeal']
['tort Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['negligence' "occupier's Liability" 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'costs Follow the Event' 'cross Appeal']

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

Negligence Occupier's Liability Personal Injury Claim and Costs Dispute / Appeal From District Court Judgment and Application for Leave to Cross Appeal on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second respondent breached any duty of care owed to the appellant as occupier of the premises where the appellant fell on a step.' 'Whether anything more was reasonably required of the second respondent than the lighting already installed.' "Whether the District Court's order that parties bear their own costs should be set aside in favour of the second respondent."]

Ratio Decidendi

The material entitled the trial judge to conclude that, although a reasonable person in the second respondent's position would have realised there was a risk that a visitor might fail to see the step and be injured, the magnitude of the risk was very low and nothing further reasonably needed to be done beyond the existing lighting; therefore the negligence appeal failed. The costs discretion miscarried because the District Court gave no reasons for departing from the general rule that costs follow the event, so the second respondent's cross-appeal on costs succeeded.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to cross-appeal granted; cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['ORDER that the Appeal be dismissed.' 'ORDER that the Appellant pay the costs of the Second Respondent of the Appeal.' 'MAKE NO ORDER as to the costs of the First Respondent of the Appeal.' 'ORDER that leave to Cross-Appeal be granted.' 'ORDER that the Cross-Appeal be upheld.' "ORDER that the Order made by Balla...