Yeomans v Carbridge Pty Ltd [2011] NSWDC 221

Yeomans v Carbridge Pty Ltd [2011] NSWDC 221

The defendant’s application for summary judgment failed because there was an arguable case that the defendant was not an agent of the carrier, or not acting within the scope of any agency; these issues require trial. Accordingly, summary determination is inappropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['limitation Periods' 'agency' 'carrier Liability' 'summary Judgment']
['tort Law' 'aviation Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['limitation Periods' 'agency' 'carrier Liability' 'summary Judgment']

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 / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Was Carbridge Pty Ltd the agent of the carrier under s33 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act 1959 (Cth)?' 'If Carbridge was an agent, was it acting within the scope of agency when the accident occurred?' "Was the plaintiff injured 'in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking'?" 'Which statutory regime governs the cause of action and limitation period?']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant’s application for summary judgment failed because there was an arguable case that the defendant was not an agent of the carrier, or not acting within the scope of any agency; these issues require trial. Accordingly, summary determination is inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Notice of Motion seeking dismissal of proceedings dismissed with costs.']