Khanna v Woolworths Group Limited [2022] NSWCA 94

Khanna v Woolworths Group Limited [2022] NSWCA 94

Leave to appeal was refused because the amount in issue was below the $100,000 statutory threshold and Mr Khanna did not show an appeal as of right or identify any arguable error of law or fact, issue of principle, question of general public importance, or reasonably clear injustice in the primary judge's...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal in a Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Judgment and Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'slip and Fall' 'obvious Risk' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'limitation Period' 'subpoena' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'negligence' 'personal Injury' 'limitation of Actions'] ['leave to Appeal' 'slip and Fall' 'obvious Risk' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'limitation Period' 'subpoena' 'costs']

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

Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal in a Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Judgment and Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal was required because the amount in issue was below the $100,000 threshold in Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(r).' 'Whether Woolworths failed to comply with notices to produce and whether the primary judge erred in refusing leave to issue a subpoena under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.3(1).' 'Whether the primary judge erred in finding the proceedings barred by s 50C of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW).' 'Whether the primary judge erred in finding no breach of duty by Woolworths and that any relevant risk was an obvious risk.' 'Whether any proposed ground raised an issue of principle, question of general public importance, or reasonably clear injustice warranting leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the amount in issue was below the $100,000 statutory threshold and Mr Khanna did not show an appeal as of right or identify any arguable error of law or fact, issue of principle, question of general public importance, or reasonably clear injustice in the primary judge's limitation, subpoena, breach of duty, obvious risk, or damages findings.

Court Disposition

Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed.' "Applicant to pay the respondent's costs in this Court."]