CONNOLLY v BURTON [2007] NSWSC 1484

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : CONNOLLY v BURTON [2007] NSWSC 1484

HEARING DATE(S) : 2 - 8 October 2007 and 21 November 2007

JUDGMENT DATE : 18 December 2007

JURISDICTION : Civil

JUDGMENT OF : McClellan CJatCL

DECISION : 1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,018,253.20; 2. The defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.

LEGISLATION CITED : Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act (Cth) 1992

Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 215 CLR 1 DNM Mining Pty Ltd v Barwick [2004] NSWCA 137 Faulkner v Keffalinos (1971) ALJR 80 Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438 CASES CITED : Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794 Minister Administering the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 v San Sebastian Pty Ltd & Ors [1983] 2 NSWLR 286 MPB(SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic (1991) 71 CLR 657 Mt Isa Mines Limited v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383 Norris v Blake [No 2] (1997) 41 NSWLR 49 State of New South Wales v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536

PARTIES : Mark Joseph Connolly (Pltf) Billy Burton (Def)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20422/99

COUNSEL : P Greenwood SC/T Morahan (Pltf) J Maconachie QC/S Torrington/A Ketas (Def)

SOLICITORS : A R Conolly & Company (Pltf) Moray & Agnew (Def)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

McCLELLAN CJ at CL

TUESDAY 18 DECEMBER 2007

20422/99 CONNOLLY v BURTON

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff sues for damages in respect of injuries he sustained on 7 June 1999 during the filming of a scene for the movie Mission Impossible 11 at Bare Island, La Perouse. The plaintiff was a stunt performer who had been engaged by Paramount (Australia) Pty Limited to play the role of a "gate guard." 2 The defendant, Mr Billy Burton was the second unit director of the film and had responsibility for directing the action sequences. The defendant joined as cross-defendants Paramount Pictures (Australia) Pty Ltd and Douglas McDonald (Rocky McDonald) the Australian assistant stunt co-ordinator. However, each of those proceedings have been settled. 3 The accident occurred at about 4.30 pm during the filming of an action shot in which a motor cycle, suspended on wires, was launched from a ramp behind the plaintiff. The plaintiff had been directed to face away from the motorcycle and fire blank shots from a pistol at a helicopter which was hovering nearby. He was to be cued to turn away from the helicopter and shoot at the bike as it travelled past him in the air and at the same time he was to fall away from its path. It will be necessary to explore in detail the sequence of events and how it happened that the plaintiff remained in the path of the cycle which struck him causing severe injuries.