17 May 2024
On assessment of all evidence and contemporaneous documents, the plaintiff's accounts were materially inconsistent and implausible, defendants' witnesses were credible, medical and other records indicated exaggeration; on the balance of probabilities the accident as pleaded did not occur and the plaintiff failed to prove liability; claim dismissed.
4 Jul 2016
The court rejected the Plaintiff's primary account as uncredible given inconsistencies with contemporaneous medical records, Plaintiff's contradictory statements about language ability, omissions to report alleged defective equipment, and acceptance of the credible evidence of Mr Lai; accordingly Plaintiff failed to prove negligence or breach and the claim was dismissed.
20 May 2010
The court found on credibility and objective facts that there was a usable passage into the shed and the plaintiff chose to walk over loose jacks; the Company did not breach its duties and liability was not established. Alternatively, even if liability were assumed the plaintiff's actions contributed 50% to the accident. Consequently the claim is dismissed and the defendant awarded costs.
29 May 2006
The judge found the plaintiff's account inherently improbable and inconsistent with physical mechanics and credible defence evidence; maintenance records and subsequent normal operation contradicted the plaintiff's version; plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the accident occurred as pleaded or that the defendants breached duties; claim dismissed.
27 Jun 1996
The June 1961 letters amounted to a solemn governmental promise that granted the residents present then a personal, non‑transferable legal right/licence to occupy Rennie’s Mill buildings indefinitely; issuing Notices to Quit in breach of those promises constituted an abuse of power amenable to judicial review, but given redevelopment and statutory functions the appropriate remedy is damages rather than quashing the Notices to Quit; entitlement to damages is limited to those who were residents in 1961 and still reside there.
19 Apr 1969
The court found the OCEAN TRAMP solely liable: the master/owners were negligent for failing to ensure engines were ready, failing to take necessary seamanship steps (prepare/drop anchors, properly manage mooring cables and pay out sufficient chain) and for lack of urgency in assembling vital parts; the DORAR was not negligent (was a 'dead ship' for legitimate repairs and had taken reasonable steps), the ILLINOIS bore no responsibility, and the first defendant's third-party claim against the second defendant was dismissed.