SYDNEY CASINO MANAGEMENT PTY LTD v SIRRIS [1997] NSWCA 303

SYDNEY CASINO MANAGEMENT PTY LTD v SIRRIS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

REGISTRAR Jupp 10 February 1997

[1997] NSWCA 303

Registrar Jupp. In this case the appellant, Sydney Casino Management Pty Ltd, has filed a notice of appeal without appointment from a decision of Judge O'Reilly of the District Court of 28 November 1996. A copy of that judgment has been supplied to me in court today and was made Exhibit | on the application.

The verdict for the plaintiff/respondent was in a sum of $24,234. It appears that the hearing before Judge O'Reilly was a re-hearing of an arbitrator's award and that the plaintiff was also entitled to indemnity costs of the re-hearing.

The claimant has sought a stay pending the determination of the appeal.

In the course of the hearing of the motion today, the appellant filed the draft notice of appeal which sets out the proposed grounds of appeal in the notice of appeal which the appellant will, presumably, in due course be filing.

I query why, if this is the notice of appeal that is going to be filed, it has not already been filed. If an appellant is aware of what grounds of appeal they will be raising on an appeal, there appears to be no reason, except for the fact that they are trying to save some money in the prospects of settling the case, why they cannot file the notice of appeal withappointment. But, that being the case the grounds of appeal which are set out go to the question of liability.

The incident which is the subject of the proceedings in the District Court was a slipping case by a patron of the Sydney Casino. It appears that the plaintiff slipped on a drink that had been spilt in the Casino.

The claimant has referred to a case of Brady v Gervand Pty Ltd and several other cases which raise the same issues and they have asserted that Judge O'Reilly did not consider whether the system of cleaning was in fact related to the cause of the injury. They agree with Judge O'Reilly's finding that the system of cleaning was negligent and that it was not up to scratch, but they assert that Judge O'Reilly did not establish that the cleaning system was a cause of the injury.