John Ware Family Trust v Rati [2005] NSWCA 336

John Ware Family Trust v Rati [2005] NSWCA 336

Leave to appeal was refused because the evidence that all motel outside lights were switched off, together with expert light-meter readings and the Opponent's evidence, provided a sufficient basis for the District Court's finding that inadequate illumination caused the accident and that reasonable additional lighting would not have been impractical or onerous. No challenge was made to damages and no substantial issue was raised on contributory negligence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal in Negligence/personal Injury Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs; costs of the Opponent to be paid on an indemnity basis on and from 11 July 2005.
Legal Topics
['premises Liability' 'adequacy of Lighting' 'foreseeability of Risk' 'causation' 'leave to Appeal' 'indemnity Costs']
['torts' 'negligence' 'personal Injury' 'civil Procedure'] ['premises Liability' 'adequacy of Lighting' 'foreseeability of Risk' 'causation' 'leave to Appeal' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal in Negligence/personal Injury Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the District Court judge erred in finding that the illumination of the car park area was inadequate.' 'Whether the District Court judge failed to articulate satisfactorily the assessment of risk and possible means of obviating the risk as required by Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40.' 'Whether additional lighting would have avoided the risk of the injury that occurred.' "Whether leave should be granted to challenge the admission of the plaintiff's expert evidence." "Whether the Opponent's costs should be paid on an indemnity basis from 11 July 2005."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the evidence that all motel outside lights were switched off, together with expert light-meter readings and the Opponent's evidence, provided a sufficient basis for the District Court's finding that inadequate illumination caused the accident and that reasonable additional lighting would not have been impractical or onerous. No challenge was made to damages and no substantial issue was raised on contributory negligence.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs; costs of the Opponent to be paid on an indemnity basis on and from 11 July 2005.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.' 'Costs of the Opponent should be paid on an indemnity basis on and from 11 July 2005.']