Annette Bulmer v Prestige Property [2007] NSWDC 263

Annette Bulmer v Prestige Property [2007] NSWDC 263

The defendant breached its duty of care by failing to provide adequate warning of the cleaning and wet floor conditions, causing the plaintiff's fall and resulting injuries. The plaintiff was a credible witness, the accident happened as contended, and no contributory negligence was established. Plaintiff was entitled to damages assessed across several heads of loss. Further, the defendant's solicitors may be required to show cause as to why they should not be personally liable for costs, due to their conduct and reliance on evidence known to be false.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
['personal Injury' 'negligence' 'damages' 'liability' 'causation' 'costs']
['tort Law'] ['personal Injury' 'negligence' 'damages' 'liability' 'causation' 'costs']

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

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant owed and breached a duty of care to the plaintiff.' "Whether the breach of duty caused the plaintiff's injuries and subsequent losses." 'Assessment of damages due to personal injury.' 'Whether there was contributory negligence by the plaintiff.' "Whether costs should be ordered against the defendant's solicitors for conduct in litigation."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached its duty of care by failing to provide adequate warning of the cleaning and wet floor conditions, causing the plaintiff's fall and resulting injuries. The plaintiff was a credible witness, the accident happened as contended, and no contributory negligence was established. Plaintiff was entitled to damages assessed across several heads of loss. Further, the defendant's solicitors may be required to show cause as to why they should not be personally liable for costs, due to their conduct and reliance on evidence known to be false.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff awarded damages in the sum of $729,800.' 'Fourth defendant must pay the costs of the plaintiff on the ordinary basis.' 'Solicitors for the fourth defendant to show cause as to why they should not personally pay the costs ordered against their client and why they should not make no recovery from their...