Hansen v Slattery Transport (NSW) Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 145

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hansen v Slattery Transport (NSW) Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 145 Hearing dates: 12 March 2012 Decision date: 18 May 2012 Before: Beazley JA at 1; Basten JA at 2; Macfarlan JA at 38 Decision: (1) Allow the appeal and set aside orders 1-3 made by the District Court. (2) Give judgment for Slattery Transport (NSW) Pty Ltd against Lyschrome Pty Ltd and Peter Hansen in an amount to be agreed between the parties or, absent agreement, to be determined by this Court, to be calculated as two-thirds of the loss suffered by Slattery Transport (NSW) Pty Ltd less one-third of the loss suffered by Lyschrome Pty Ltd. (3) Order that Lyschrome Pty Ltd pay two-thirds of the costs of Slattery Transport (NSW) Pty Ltd and Noel Christopher Hawkins in the District Court. (4) Order that the appellants pay two-thirds of the costs of the respondents in this Court including two-thirds of the costs of the objection to competency. (5) Direct that if agreement is reached with respect to the amount of the judgment and in respect of costs, the appropriate orders, including orders varying these orders, are to be entered by the Registrar. (6) In the event that agreement is not reached in respect of any proposed orders or variation of these orders, each party is directed to file and serve draft orders and submissions in support within 28 days of the date of this judgment, so that the Court may determine final orders without a further oral hearing. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: DAMAGES - torts - negligence - claim and cross-claim each alleging negligence and each answered by a defence of contributory negligence - whether a single apportionment of responsibility appropriate