New South Wales Court of Appeal CITATION : Pan v Blundell [1999] NSWCA 180 revised - 21/06/99 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40488/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 18 May 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 18 May 1999 PARTIES : Joanna PAN v Barry Robert BLUNDELL JUDGMENT OF : Meagher JA at 1; Powell JA at 4; Fitzgerald JA at 5 LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 3607/96 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : SIDIS DCJ COUNSEL : Claimant: J. Crumpton QC/G. Clarke Opponent: A.J.J. Renshaw SOLICITORS : Claimant: Bolzan & Dimitri Opponent: Moray & Agnew CATCHWORDS : Negligence - contributory negligence seventy per cent - no error. DECISION : Leave to appeal refused with costs. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA:40488/98 MEAGHER JA POWELL JA FITZGERALD JA Tuesday, 18 May 1999 JOANNA PAN v BARRY ROBERT BLUNDELL JUDGMENT 1 MEAGHER JA: In this matter, leave is sought to appeal against a verdict given by her Honour Judge Sidis in favour of the plaintiff appellant in the sum of $19,129.67. 2 Her Honour found the defendant guilty of negligence but the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of seventy per cent. For my mind, that finding is hardly surprising, bearing in mind that the plaintiff crossed a busy street against red traffic lights, without looking to see whether any traffic was coming. 3 There were a multiplicity of factual issues before her Honour, both on liability and on damages. Her Honour found for the defendant on most but not on all of them. I am unable to see why her Honour is incorrect in her findings, even on a prima facie basis, but even if she were, I would still not grant leave because no real question of principle is involved. For these reasons, in my view, leave should be refused with costs. 4 POWELL JA: I agree. 5 FITZGERALD JA: I agree. 6 MEAGHER JA: That is the order of the Court. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.