HICKS v MERCY FAMILY CENTRE [2002] NSWSC 661

HICKS v MERCY FAMILY CENTRE [2002] NSWSC 661

The Plaintiff’s decision to sue the First Defendant was not prompted by any conduct or uncertainty generated by the Second Defendant but rather by the Plaintiff’s own error or overcaution. Statutory and regulatory provisions did not impose on the First Defendant the obligation claimed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff must bear the First Defendant’s costs up to the appointment of the Protective Commissioner, and the Cross-Claim by the Second Defendant fails in all respects.

Parties
Plaintiff: Simon Erick Hicks; First Defendant: Mercy Family Centre Limited; Second Defendant: Cindy Ip
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Judgment
Outcome
Orders as to costs made. Verdict and judgment for Cross Defendants on Cross-Claims.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Costs, Cross Claims
Torts Negligence Costs Cross Claims

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Erick Hicks

Plaintiff

Mercy Family Centre Limited

First Defendant

Cindy Ip

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff or Second Defendant should bear the First Defendant's costs
  2. 2 Whether the joinder of the First Defendant was reasonable and proper to ensure recovery
  3. 3 Obligations under the Children (Care and Protection) Act and regulations in relation to provision of cots

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff’s decision to sue the First Defendant was not prompted by any conduct or uncertainty generated by the Second Defendant but rather by the Plaintiff’s own error or overcaution. Statutory and regulatory provisions did not impose on the First Defendant the obligation claimed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff must bear the First Defendant’s costs up to the appointment of the Protective Commissioner, and the Cross-Claim by the Second Defendant fails in all respects.

Court Disposition

Orders as to costs made. Verdict and judgment for Cross Defendants on Cross-Claims.

Orders

  • Second Defendant to pay the Plaintiff's costs of the claim against her.
  • Plaintiff by his former tutor Susan Elizabeth Sendt to pay the First Defendant's costs up to the time of the appointment of the Protective Commissioner as the Plaintiff's tutor.