MATOUK v HUNGRY JACKS [2009] NSWSC 1176

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : MATOUK v HUNGRY JACKS [2009] NSWSC 1176

HEARING DATE(S) : 14 September 2009

JUDGMENT DATE : 5 November 2009

JUDGMENT OF : Mathews AJ at 1

DECISION : 1. I order that the first defendant pay to the plaintiff $35,000 within one month of today, being part of the damages sought to be recovered by the plaintiff in these proceedings. 2. I order that the costs of the application be costs in the cause.

LEGISLATION CITED : Civil Procedure Act 2005 Civil Liability Act 2002

CASES CITED : Drotem Pty Ltd v Manning [2000] NSWCA 320 Schott Kem Limited v Bentley [1991] 1QB 61

Pierre MATOUK (Plaintiff) PARTIES : Hungry Jacks Pty Limited (First Defendant) Competitive Foods Australia Pty Limited (Second Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20587/2008

COUNSEL : Mr J Anderson (Plaintiff) Mr D Kelly (1st & 2nd Defendants)

SOLICITORS : Martin Bell & Co (Plaintiff) Gillis Delaney Lawyers (1st & 2nd Defendants)

- 14 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION PROGRESSIVE LIST

MATHEWS AJ Thursday, 5 November 2009

2008/20587

Pierre MATOUK v HUNGRY JACKS PTY LIMITED AND 1 OR

JUDGMENT

Background 1 On 22 December 2008 the plaintiff, Pierre Matouk, commenced proceedings in this Court seeking damages for personal injuries. The claim arouse out of an incident which occurred at a Hungry Jacks store at Warwick Farm on 10 August 2008. That morning the plaintiff went to Hungry Jacks and bought some food which he took to a table provided for that purpose. He went to sit down on a seat at the table, but the seat collapsed, causing him to fall onto the ground. He was taken by ambulance to Liverpool Hospital where he complained of back pain and partial aesthesia in his left leg. An x-ray of the spine showed no fractures and the plaintiff was discharged later that day. 2 The plaintiff claims that as a result of the injuries sustained in this fall he has suffered numerous physical and psychological symptoms, as I shall describe shortly. These in turn have meant that he has been unable to return to his pre-injury employed as a plumber's labourer. 3 The Statement of Claim asserts, in the alternative, that each of the defendants was the occupier of the relevant premises. It raises causes of action in both negligence and breach of contract. A Defence filed on behalf of both defendants admits that the first defendant, Hungry Jacks Pty Limited, was the occupier of the premises. Liability is denied, and contributory negligence asserted.