Belinda Budich v Knightly Holdings Pty Ltd [2013] NSWDC 27

Belinda Budich v Knightly Holdings Pty Ltd [2013] NSWDC 27

Both the Centre Operator and Mr Hancock owed and breached their respective duties of care in relation to the setup and supervision of the water dispenser display. The Centre Operator had the primary responsibility for site selection and public safety; Mr Hancock was also responsible for safe assembly and operation of the display. All three tortfeasors shared liability, with the apportionment reflecting 50% to the Centre Operator, 10% to Mr Hancock, and 40% to Awesome Water. However, Mr Hancock's liability was found to have been satisfied by Awesome Water's acceptance of liability and prior settlement, so the cross-claim against him was dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Belinda Budich; First Defendant/cross Claimant: Knightly Holdings Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Awesome Water Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Gary Hancock
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Cross Claim (apportionment of Liability and Damages)
Outcome
First Defendant's cross-claim against the Third Defendant dismissed; judgment for the Third Defendant; costs awarded to the Third Defendant on the usual basis.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Contribution Between Tortfeasors, Occupier's Liability, Personal Injury
Civil Liability Torts Negligence Apportionment of Liability Contribution Between Tortfeasors Occupier's Liability Personal Injury

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Belinda Budich

Plaintiff

Knightly Holdings Pty Ltd

First Defendant/cross Claimant

Awesome Water Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Gary Hancock

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Cross Claim (apportionment of Liability and Damages)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should liability and damages be apportioned between concurrent tortfeasors (the Centre Operator and Mr Hancock) after prior settlement with another tortfeasor (Awesome Water)?
  2. 2 What were the duties of care owed in the context of a personal injury at a shopping centre from a fall caused by spillage from a water dispenser display?
  3. 3 Was there a breach of duty by the Centre Operator or Mr Hancock?

Ratio Decidendi

Both the Centre Operator and Mr Hancock owed and breached their respective duties of care in relation to the setup and supervision of the water dispenser display. The Centre Operator had the primary responsibility for site selection and public safety; Mr Hancock was also responsible for safe assembly and operation of the display. All three tortfeasors shared liability, with the apportionment reflecting 50% to the Centre Operator, 10% to Mr Hancock, and 40% to Awesome Water. However, Mr Hancock's liability was found to have been satisfied by Awesome Water's acceptance of liability and prior settlement, so the cross-claim against him was dismissed.

Court Disposition

First Defendant's cross-claim against the Third Defendant dismissed; judgment for the Third Defendant; costs awarded to the Third Defendant on the usual basis.

Orders

  • First Defendant's cross-claim against the Third Defendant is dismissed.
  • Judgment for the Third Defendant against the First Defendant.