Kitoko v Mirvac Real Estate Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 152

Kitoko v Mirvac Real Estate Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 152

The evidence, especially the CCTV footage, did not support the plaintiff's account of slipping; he simply walked into the glass. There was no adequate evidence of breach of duty by the defendants or a causal link between alleged injuries (except to head and possibly neck) and the incident. Judgment was therefore entered for the defendants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'personal Injury' 'public Liability' 'damages Assessment']
['tort' 'public Liability'] ['negligence' 'personal Injury' 'public Liability' 'damages Assessment']

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

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff resulting in his injuries' "Whether the plaintiff's injuries, including an aneurism and ongoing symptoms, were caused by the incident" 'What damages, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to recover']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence, especially the CCTV footage, did not support the plaintiff's account of slipping; he simply walked into the glass. There was no adequate evidence of breach of duty by the defendants or a causal link between alleged injuries (except to head and possibly neck) and the incident. Judgment was therefore entered for the defendants.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the defendants.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs." 'The exhibits are to be retained for 28 days and then returned to the parties unless the Registry is informed before that time that an appeal has been lodged.']