Nominal Defendant v Australian Capital Territory [1999] FCA 446

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nominal Defendant v Australian Capital Territory [1999] FCA 446 APPEAL – appeal against judgment of Full Court of Supreme Court setting aside apportionment of damages by Master – principles applicable – whether Full Court applied correct principles – it did. TORTS – joint tortfeasors – apportionment of responsibility and damages – plaintiff steps over side of bridge in darkness when frightened by approaching vehicle – apportionment between driver of unidentified vehicle and Territory responsible for design of bridge. Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1955 (ACT), s 11, s 12 Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513 considered A V Jennings Construction Pty Ltd v Maumill (1956) 30 ALJ 100 considered British Fame (Owners) v MacGregor (Owners) [1943] AC 197 considered Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10 considered House v The King (1936) CLR 449 referred to James Hardie & Co Pty Limited v Seltsam Pty Ltd [1998] HCA 78 referred to Bitumen and Oil Refineries (Australia) Ltd v Commissioner for Government Transport (1955) 92 CLR 200 considered Covacevich v Thomson [1988] Aust Torts Reports 80-153 considered Precision Plastics Pty Ltd v Demir (1975) 132 CLR 362 referred to Wilson v Peisley (1975) 50 ALJR 207 referred to Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513 referred to J G Fleming, The Law of Torts, 8th edn, at 264

ON APPEAL FROM THE FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT v AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY AND CINDY VAN DER GEVEL AG 113 OF 1998

MILES, COOPER, WHITLAM, MATHEWS AND MADGWICK JJ 15 APRIL 1999 CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY AG 113 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM THE FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT