Timberland Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Julie Bundy [2005] NSWCA 419

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION: Timberland Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Julie Bundy [2005] NSWCA 419

HEARING DATE(S): 9 November 2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 30 November 2005

JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Basten JA at 2; Hunt AJA at 63

DECISION: A. In matter CA 40402 of 2004 (Timberland Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Bundy); (1) Appeal dismissed; (2) Judgment of District Court varied so as to provide a verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff against the Second Defendant, (Timberland Property Holdings Pty Ltd) for the amount of $77,762.25; (3) Second Defendant to have leave to seek contribution from the First Defendant in accordance with the apportionment of 30% liability of the First Defendant made by the trial judge on 11 March 2004; (4) The Appellant to pay the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal in respect of this matter, other than the costs dealt with on 27 June 2005; B. In matter CA 40608 of 2005 (John Pincham Real Estate Pty Ltd v Bundy); (1) Appeal dismissed; (2) Judgment of District Court varied so as to provide a verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant (John Pincham Real Estate Pty Ltd) for the amount of $79,158.75, less payments made under the Workers Compensation Act; (3) The First Defendant to have leave to seek contribution from the Second Defendant in accordance with the apportionment of 70% liability of the second defendant made by the trial judge on 11 March 2004; (4) The Appellant to pay the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal in respect of this matter, other than the costs dealt with on 27 June 2005; C. Each appellant should have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act in respect of the costs of the cross-appeals if otherwise so entitled.

CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE – plaintiff slipped on patch of grease or oil in car park – whether finding that patch was 'obvious' was inconsistent with a finding of breach of duty of care – whether sufficient evidence to substantiate causation – form of orders where plaintiff recovered against several concurrent tortfeasors – whether plaintiff entitled to several judgments against each for the full amount