GOWAN v HARDIE and ANOR [1991] NSWCA 126

GOWAN v HARDIE and ANOR [1991] NSWCA 126

The exemption clause in the parachute training contract was clear and unambiguous and covered the circumstances of the appellant's injury, including negligent acts by agents or servants of the respondent. The Contracts Review Act did not provide grounds to void or vary the clause, as it was not unjust in the circumstances, and the judge’s decision not to make detailed findings under s9(2) was not erroneous in a straightforward case.

Parties
Appellant: URJ Gowan; First Respondent: Sophie Hardie; Second Respondent: Canberra Sport Parachute Centre
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 1991
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Exemption Clause, Construction of Exemption Clauses, Contract for Parachute Jump, Contracts Review Act S9(2), Unjust Contracts
Contract Law Exemption Clause Construction of Exemption Clauses Contract for Parachute Jump Contracts Review Act S9(2) Unjust Contracts

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

URJ Gowan

Appellant

Sophie Hardie

First Respondent

Canberra Sport Parachute Centre

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exemption clause in the parachuting contract protected the respondents, including the servant (pilot), from liability for negligence
  2. 2 Whether the Contracts Review Act allowed the exemption clause to be varied or declared void
  3. 3 Whether the judge's failure to make specific findings under s9(2) of the Contracts Review Act was an appealable error

Ratio Decidendi

The exemption clause in the parachute training contract was clear and unambiguous and covered the circumstances of the appellant's injury, including negligent acts by agents or servants of the respondent. The Contracts Review Act did not provide grounds to void or vary the clause, as it was not unjust in the circumstances, and the judge’s decision not to make detailed findings under s9(2) was not erroneous in a straightforward case.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.