NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Singline v Commonwealth of Australia [2007] NSWSC 900 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S) : 25/09/06-29/09/06, 03/10/06-04/10/06, 11/10/06-13/10/06
JUDGMENT DATE : 27 August 2007
JUDGMENT OF : Rothman J
(1) Extension of time is granted sufficient to enable the plaintiff to file his Statement of Claim on 18 September 2001.
(2) Judgment for the plaintiff.
(3) The defendant shall pay damages to the plaintiff in the sum of $1,244,096, including interest. DECISION : (4) The defendant shall pay the costs of the plaintiff of and incidental to these proceedings, as agreed or assessed.
(5) The parties have liberty to approach on the basis of any perceived miscalculation of interest or principal and for any special order relating to costs.
(6) Otherwise the proceedings are dismissed.
CATCHWORDS : NEGLIGENCE - Melbourne/Voyager collision claim for damages - breach of duty admitted - issue of causation - general anxiety and alcoholism - future career in Navy - extension of time granted - damages awarded.
LEGISLATION CITED : Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Commonwealth of Australia v Shaw [2006] NSWCA 209 CASES CITED : Commonwealth of Australia v Smith [2005] NSWCA 478 Harris v Commercial Minerals Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 1 Simonius Vischer & Co v Holt and Thompson [1979] 2 NSWLR 322
PARTIES : P: Geoffrey Noel James Singline D: Commonwealth of Australia
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate