BENJAMIN SCOTT (ALSO KNOWN AS BENJAMIN SKORJENKO) v CORAL GWENDOLYN STANSBU RY [1990] NSWCA 162

BENJAMIN SCOTT (ALSO KNOWN AS BENJAMIN SKORJENKO) v CORAL GWENDOLYN STANSBU RY [1990] NSWCA 162

There was no evidence of want of care on the plaintiff's part and she fell due to the very danger that established the owner's liability, so contributory negligence was not made out. The Bullock order was wrongly made because there was no conduct of the owner making it reasonable for him to bear the agent's costs.

Parties
Appellant/owner: Benjamin Scott (also known as Benjamin Skorjenko); Respondent/plaintiff: Coral Gwendolyn Stansbury; Agent/third Defendant's Representative: Miss Killy; Tenant/second Respondent: Miss Gilson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 1990
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Occupiers' Liability, Costs, Bullock Order
Tort Law Civil Procedure Negligence Contributory Negligence Occupiers' Liability Costs Bullock Order

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Scott (also known as Benjamin Skorjenko)

Appellant/owner

Coral Gwendolyn Stansbury

Respondent/plaintiff

Miss Killy

Agent/third Defendant's Representative

Miss Gilson

Tenant/second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in making a Bullock order (costs indemnity) against the owner

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of want of care on the plaintiff's part and she fell due to the very danger that established the owner's liability, so contributory negligence was not made out. The Bullock order was wrongly made because there was no conduct of the owner making it reasonable for him to bear the agent's costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Special Bullock order for costs made below set aside
  • Plaintiff/respondent to pay the costs of the third defendant (agent) at trial