Salih v Emirates [2020] NSWCA 215

Salih v Emirates [2020] NSWCA 215

The applicant failed to establish that the injury resulted from an 'accident' as defined by Art 17 of the Montréal Convention; the primary judge’s factual findings that the compartment door opened in the normal and expected fashion were open on the evidence, and appellate intervention was not justified. The proposed...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal Application and Proposed Appeal
Outcome
Summons seeking leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['appeal Leave to Appeal' "meaning of 'accident' Under Montréal Convention" 'factual Findings Review' 'liability of Air Carrier for Injury' "civil Aviation (carriers' Liability) Act 1959"]
['aviation Law' 'civil Procedure' 'personal Injury'] ['appeal Leave to Appeal' "meaning of 'accident' Under Montréal Convention" 'factual Findings Review' 'liability of Air Carrier for Injury' "civil Aviation (carriers' Liability) Act 1959"]

Source-derived case record

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 / Leave to Appeal Application and Proposed Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the injury constituted an 'accident' under Art 17 of the Montréal Convention" "Whether the primary judge's factual findings were glaringly improbable or against compelling inferences" 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted where proposed appeal concerns only factual findings']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that the injury resulted from an 'accident' as defined by Art 17 of the Montréal Convention; the primary judge’s factual findings that the compartment door opened in the normal and expected fashion were open on the evidence, and appellate intervention was not justified. The proposed appeal raised no issue of principle or general public importance and was wholly concerned with factual findings, so leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Summons seeking leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.' 'Applicant to pay respondent’s costs.']