Bamber v Hartman Pacific Pty Ltd; Bamber v Hartman Pacific Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1318

Bamber v Hartman Pacific Pty Ltd; Bamber v Hartman Pacific Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1318

The plaintiffs did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the defects in the ladder identified by the experts occurred during manufacture or that Hartman was liable for the collapse of the ladder. The evidence of Mr and Mrs Bamber was not accepted as reliable where uncorroborated, and the Court was not satisfied that the alleged consequences and losses were proven. Mrs Bamber did not establish that any compensable psychiatric illness was caused by witnessing the fall. Accordingly, both claims failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Claims Under the Australian Consumer Law of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (cth) Arising From an Allegedly Defective Ladder / Principal Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Both plaintiffs' claims dismissed; judgment for Hartman; costs to follow the event unless the parties approach to be heard within 14 days.
Legal Topics
['defective Ladder' 'manufacturing Defect' 'causation' 'credibility and Reliability of Witnesses' 'psychiatric Injury' 'economic Loss' 'contributory Negligence' 'costs Follow the Event']
['personal Injury' 'consumer Law' 'negligence' 'civil Procedure'] ['defective Ladder' 'manufacturing Defect' 'causation' 'credibility and Reliability of Witnesses' 'psychiatric Injury' 'economic Loss' 'contributory Negligence' 'costs Follow the Event']

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

Personal Injury Damages Claims Under the Australian Consumer Law of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (cth) Arising From an Allegedly Defective Ladder / Principal Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the two faults identified by the experts occurred during manufacture' "Whether the ladder collapsed because of defective manufacture and thereby caused Mr Bamber's fall" 'How Mr Bamber came to fall from the ladder' 'Whether Mr and Mrs Bamber were credible and reliable witnesses' "The consequences of Mr Bamber's ankle injury and whether it precluded him from working" "The nature, extent and cause of Mrs Bamber's psychiatric condition" 'What loss and damage each plaintiff suffered' 'Whether any damages would be reduced for contributory negligence']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the defects in the ladder identified by the experts occurred during manufacture or that Hartman was liable for the collapse of the ladder. The evidence of Mr and Mrs Bamber was not accepted as reliable where uncorroborated, and the Court was not satisfied that the alleged consequences and losses were proven. Mrs Bamber did not establish that any compensable psychiatric illness was caused by witnessing the fall. Accordingly, both claims failed.

Court Disposition

Both plaintiffs' claims dismissed; judgment for Hartman; costs to follow the event unless the parties approach to be heard within 14 days.

Orders

  • ["Both Mr and Mrs Bamber's claims be dismissed." 'All exhibits and subpoenaed material may be returned forthwith; any exhibits returned must be retained intact by the party or person that produced the material until the expiry of the time to file an appeal, or until any appeal has been determined.' 'Unless the...