Geyer v Redeland Pty Limited [2013] NSWCA 338

Geyer v Redeland Pty Limited [2013] NSWCA 338

The evidence did not satisfy the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the person who bumped the appellant was a member of the catering staff for whose conduct the first respondent would be liable; thus, the appellant failed to establish negligence against the first respondent, and the trial judge's reasoning process was not in error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['proof of Negligence' 'evidence' 'balance of Probabilities' 'vicarious Liability' 'contributory Negligence']
['torts' 'negligence'] ['proof of Negligence' 'evidence' 'balance of Probabilities' 'vicarious Liability' '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

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge failed to have regard to relevant evidence impacting the analysis of probabilities as to the identity of the person who caused the appellant's fall" "Whether delay in giving judgment affected the trial judge's consideration of evidence" "Whether the trial judge erred in his analysis of the probability relating to the identity of the person who caused the appellant's fall" 'Whether the person who bumped the appellant was negligent']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not satisfy the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the person who bumped the appellant was a member of the catering staff for whose conduct the first respondent would be liable; thus, the appellant failed to establish negligence against the first respondent, and the trial judge's reasoning process was not in error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs' 'Cross-appeal dismissed with costs']