Hilditch v Dhasmana & Ors [2009] NSWDC 27

Hilditch v Dhasmana & Ors [2009] NSWDC 27

The plaintiff failed because the Court did not accept that any complaint about the leaking shower was made and was not satisfied that the plaintiff suffered injury in the manner claimed. The evidence of repeated complaints was inconsistent with the absence of any record and with the evidence of the managing agent's staff, and the contemporaneous hospital notes recorded a materially different mechanism of injury. As the plaintiff's claim failed, the cross-claim also failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Slip and Fall Negligence Claim With Cross Claim for Contribution or Indemnity / District Court Trial Judgment and Costs Orders
Outcome
Verdict for the defendant on the plaintiff's claim and verdict for the cross-defendant on the cross-claim, with further costs orders made.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall in Rented Premises' 'credit of Plaintiff and Witness' 'duty of Care and Breach' 'managing Agent Liability' 'cross Claim for Contribution or Indemnity' 'offer of Compromise and Indemnity Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'negligence' 'personal Injury' 'landlord and Tenant' 'agency' 'costs'] ['slip and Fall in Rented Premises' 'credit of Plaintiff and Witness' 'duty of Care and Breach' 'managing Agent Liability' 'cross Claim for Contribution or Indemnity' 'offer of Compromise and Indemnity 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 Slip and Fall Negligence Claim With Cross Claim for Contribution or Indemnity / District Court Trial Judgment and Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["The circumstances in which the plaintiff's injury occurred." 'Whether any complaint made concerning the condition of the bathroom was made.' 'Whether the circumstances as described by the plaintiff involved a breach of duty of care on the part of the defendant.' 'Liability as between the defendant and the cross-defendant.' 'The damages, if any, to be awarded to the plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed because the Court did not accept that any complaint about the leaking shower was made and was not satisfied that the plaintiff suffered injury in the manner claimed. The evidence of repeated complaints was inconsistent with the absence of any record and with the evidence of the managing agent's staff, and the contemporaneous hospital notes recorded a materially different mechanism of injury. As the plaintiff's claim failed, the cross-claim also failed.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the defendant on the plaintiff's claim and verdict for the cross-defendant on the cross-claim, with further costs orders made.

Orders

  • ["Verdict for the defendant on the plaintiff's claim." 'Verdict for the cross-defendant on the cross-claim.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings on an ordinary basis up to and including 28 November 2007 and on an indemnity basis thereafter." "The cross-defendant is to pay the...