Lynch v Cavallo [2021] NSWSC 704

Lynch v Cavallo [2021] NSWSC 704

Approval was granted because, on the authority of Singh v Lynch, the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the materialisation of an obvious risk of the dangerous recreational activity of horseracing, namely injury from another jockey's manner of riding during the race. No additional causative feature was identified to distinguish Singh v Lynch. The defendant would not be found liable under s 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), so the plaintiff had no real prospects of success and settlement on the terms proposed was in his interests.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Negligence; Application for Settlement Approval / Application for Approval of Settlement Pursuant to S 76(3) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw)
Outcome
Settlement approved; judgment for the defendant; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['settlement Approval' 'dangerous Recreational Activity' 'obvious Risk' 'horse Racing Injury' 'no Liability Under S 5 L of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw)']
['negligence' 'civil Procedure' 'civil Liability'] ['settlement Approval' 'dangerous Recreational Activity' 'obvious Risk' 'horse Racing Injury' 'no Liability Under S 5 L of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw)']

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; Application for Settlement Approval / Application for Approval of Settlement Pursuant to S 76(3) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the proposed settlement on the basis of judgment for the defendant with no order as to costs should be approved as being in the plaintiff's interests." "Whether the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity engaged in by the plaintiff." 'Whether Singh v Lynch meant the plaintiff had no real prospects of success against the defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

Approval was granted because, on the authority of Singh v Lynch, the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the materialisation of an obvious risk of the dangerous recreational activity of horseracing, namely injury from another jockey's manner of riding during the race. No additional causative feature was identified to distinguish Singh v Lynch. The defendant would not be found liable under s 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), so the plaintiff had no real prospects of success and settlement on the terms proposed was in his interests.

Court Disposition

Settlement approved; judgment for the defendant; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 76(3) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), approve the settlement of the proceedings on the basis of the orders in (2) and (3) below.' 'Judgment for the defendant.' 'Make no order as to costs with the intention that each party is to bear his own costs.']