Sutherland Shire Council v Stamatakakos [2002] NSWCA 406

Sutherland Shire Council v Stamatakakos [2002] NSWCA 406

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenges did not disclose error warranting leave: the financial reports were not sufficiently specific or probative, the trial judge did not misapply Brodie on the evidence before him, the 10% contributory negligence assessment did not justify appellate interference, and the damages were well below the $100,000 appeal-as-of-right limit so arguable error alone was insufficient to justify leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal in a Personal Injury Tripping Case / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Judgment, Heard Concurrently With the Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['trip on Footpath Discontinuity' 'local Authority Liability' 'probative Value of Financial Reports' 'contributory Negligence' 'leave to Appeal Below Monetary Limit']
['personal Injury' 'negligence' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['trip on Footpath Discontinuity' 'local Authority Liability' 'probative Value of Financial Reports' 'contributory Negligence' 'leave to Appeal Below Monetary Limit']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal in a Personal Injury Tripping Case / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Judgment, Heard Concurrently With the Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the council's financial reports as not sufficiently probative." 'Whether the trial judge misapplied Brodie v Singleton Shire Council in finding breach of duty by a local authority for failure to repair the pathway.' 'Whether the finding of 10% contributory negligence disclosed error warranting leave to appeal.' 'Whether arguable error in a case below the District Court Act 1973 (NSW) appeal-as-of-right monetary limit justified a grant of leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenges did not disclose error warranting leave: the financial reports were not sufficiently specific or probative, the trial judge did not misapply Brodie on the evidence before him, the 10% contributory negligence assessment did not justify appellate interference, and the damages were well below the $100,000 appeal-as-of-right limit so arguable error alone was insufficient to justify leave.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' "The claimant is to pay the opponent's costs of the application for leave and any cost associated with the appeal being heard concurrently."]