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. On my reading of the judgment, and I have only had an opportunity to glance at it shortly this morning, they may be right. That being the case, nevertheless, I cannot say that the appeal is a certainty and I merely say that it is an arguable appeal. Nevertheless, the judgment amount is a very small amount in general terms for matters in the Court of Appeal. The respondent is a 26 year old girl who lives at home with her parents. The claimant notes that in correspondence between the solicitors for the parties, it has been indicated that her only asset of any value is a bank account and she has declined to disclose the value of the amount of money in that bank account. I do not know that this means very much. A bank account held by a 26 year old will vary from time to time, and I think it is not unreasonable for a 26 year old not to undertake to spend money from her only bank account. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS The plaintiff was, at the time of the trial, employed with Telstra and as far as I am advised today she is still employed by Telstra. The opponent has raised the question as to whether she is likely to remain employed having regard to the fact that her parents are in ill health and also having regard to the normal risks of unemployment, particularly if one is employed in Telstra. Nevertheless, the evidence, as I understand it, does not indicate that she is likely, any more than any other person, to be unemployed in the near future. There is no evidence as to what amount she is earning, but I would expect that she is earning an average income. It appears to me that a 26 year old will be able to repay a judgment amount of $24,500 plus any interest, plus any costs that may be paid, over a normal working life and in the ordinary course. It would obviously be prudent for a plaintiff who is also a respondent to an appeal, paid a judgment amount of that amount, not to waste it and, hopefully, to invest it. It has not however been a policy of this court to make directions that people be prudent with the judgments that they are entitled to, and the amount of the judgment in this case does not justify an order requiring the plaintiff/respondent to provide security. It may well be that the plaintiff, although she has not led any evidence, may have some pressing need for that amount of money. The onus is on the appellant to establish that the plaintiff should not be entitled to the fruits of her victory. I do not feel that that onus has been met. The orders I make are that the motion be dismissed with costs. Orders accordingly.