Gordon v Perignon & Ors [2004] NSWSC 354

Gordon v Perignon & Ors [2004] NSWSC 354

Neither the owner nor the owners corporation owed a duty of care in the circumstances; neither knew nor ought to have known that the flyscreen constituted a danger. The injury was caused by the parents' actions, and no breach of statutory or common law duty was established.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Maxine Gordon by her next friend Jessica Gordon; Plaintiff: Jessica Gordon; First Defendant: Colette Perignon; Second Defendant: Owners Corporation (Body Corporate) Strata Plan: 8362; Third Defendant: Canley Vale Real Estate Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Negligence Claim / Judgment After Trial of Liability
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants on all claims; all cross-claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Causation, Occupier's Liability, Statutory Duty
Tort Law Statutory Interpretation Negligence Duty of Care Causation Occupier's Liability Statutory Duty

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

Parties

Maxine Gordon by her next friend Jessica Gordon

Plaintiff

Jessica Gordon

Plaintiff

Colette Perignon

First Defendant

Owners Corporation (Body Corporate) Strata Plan: 8362

Second Defendant

Canley Vale Real Estate Pty Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligence Claim / Judgment After Trial of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the owner or owners corporation owed a duty of care to prevent the accident
  2. 2 Whether any breach of duty or statutory duty was established
  3. 3 Whether the flyscreen was defective and causally contributed to the injury

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the owner nor the owners corporation owed a duty of care in the circumstances; neither knew nor ought to have known that the flyscreen constituted a danger. The injury was caused by the parents' actions, and no breach of statutory or common law duty was established.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants on all claims; all cross-claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendants in each proceeding.
  • Plaintiff to pay the costs of each proceeding.