Rallis v Pang [2003] NSWCA 202

Rallis v Pang [2003] NSWCA 202

The evidence was insufficient to identify a hazard linked to either opponent; the risks were obvious, and the claimant was aware of them. Neither the owner nor the council owed a relevant duty of care in the circumstances, nor was any breach established. Leave to appeal dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Vaso Rallis; Respondent: Saw Hing Pang; Respondent: Hurstville City Council (Second Opponent)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Tort Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Summons for leave dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Liability of Property Owners, Liability of Councils
Tort Negligence Duty of Care Breach of Duty Liability of Property Owners Liability of Councils

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

Parties

Vaso Rallis

Applicant

Saw Hing Pang

Respondent

Hurstville City Council (Second Opponent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether duty of care was owed by owners of property and local council for broken footpath resulting from building works
  2. 2 Whether either party breached duty of care by failing to rectify footpath hazard
  3. 3 Sufficiency of evidence regarding nature and cause of the hazard

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was insufficient to identify a hazard linked to either opponent; the risks were obvious, and the claimant was aware of them. Neither the owner nor the council owed a relevant duty of care in the circumstances, nor was any breach established. Leave to appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons for leave dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Summons for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Applicant to pay respondents' costs