Veevers v Coleman [2013] NSWDC 210

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Veevers v Coleman [2013] NSWDC 210 Hearing dates: 21/10/2013 - 23/10/2013 Decision date: 25 October 2013 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Elkaim SC DCJ Decision: Judgment for the third and fourth defendants Catchwords: Personal injury, pedestrian use of an adjoining property driveway by a tradesman Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Alan Lee Veevers (Plaintiff) Christopher Lambie (Third Defendant) Katherine Lambie (Fourth Defendant) Representation: A Lidden SC and P Kintominas (Plaintiff) R Gambi (Third and Fourth Defendants) Brydens Law Office (Plaintiff) Gadens Lawyers (Third and Fourth Defendants) File Number(s): 2012/00206356 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1The plaintiff was born in England. He left school after completing his 'O' Levels. These seem to be the rough equivalent of the School Certificate. The plaintiff became a carpenter. He emigrated to Australia in 1994. He carried on work as a carpenter on a self-employed basis. 2On 17 May 2010 the plaintiff was injured in the course of his work at No 25 Loombah Street, Bilgolah ("No 25"). The specific place of his injury was on the adjoining property, No 27 Loombah Street ("No 27"). The plaintiff sued the respective owners of No 25 (first and second defendants) and No 27 (third and fourth defendants). The plaintiff resolved his differences with the first and second defendants by way of a Consent Judgment filed on 1 October 2013. The third and fourth defendants will now be referred to as the defendants. 3The plaintiff says his injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendants. The action falls under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (the "CLA"). The plaintiff has claimed damages under the following heads: non-economic loss, past and future economic loss, past and future medical expenses and future paid domestic assistance. The last head of damages was ultimately abandoned. 4The defendants denied liability. They also alleged contributory negligence. There is no distinction to be made between the defendants. They were not in residence at the time of the plaintiff's injury. The property was rented to tenants.