NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Goldsmith by her tutor the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian v Bisset (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 634 Hearing dates: 28, 29, 30 October and 6 November 2014 Date of orders: 29 May 2015 Decision date: 29 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Campbell J Decision: My orders are: The questions ordered to be determined separately under Rule 28.2 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) are answered as follows: Question 1: Were the plaintiff's injuries caused by the negligence of the defendant? Answer: Yes. Question 2:Was the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence? Answer: No. Under Rule 28.3 enter judgment for the plaintiff for damages to be assessed; The defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the separate question proceedings on the ordinary basis after they have been agreed or assessed; List the matter for directions before the Common Law Registrar at 9 am on Friday, 26th June 2015. Catchwords: TORTS – negligence – Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) – injuries arising from a collision with a young child on a pushbike – liability of driver – whether 9 year old child with developmental disabilities and not wearing a helmet is contributorily negligent under s138 Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) s 5R Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – principle – purposive construction - construction of s 138(2)(d) Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) – legislative intention – whether minor was to be included or excluded from a finding of contributory negligence for not wearing a helmet Legislation Cited: Australian Road Rules (NSW) Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW); Evidence Act 1995 (NSW); Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 (NSW); Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW); Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW); Road Transport (Safety & Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation 1999 (NSW) Cases Cited: Boral Bricks Pty Ltd v Cosmidis (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 139; Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1981] HCA 26; 147 CLR 297; Davis v Swift [2014] NSWCA 458; 69 MVR 375; Derrick v Cheung [2001] HCA 48; 181 ALR 301; Doubleday v Kelly [2005] NSWCA 151; Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118; Hoyt v Rosenburg (1947) 173 AmLR 883; Imbree v McNeilly [2008] HCA 40; 236 CLR 510; Inco Europe Limited v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586; Joseph v Swallow and Ariell Pty Ltd [1933] HCA 47; 49 CLR 578, Joslyn v Berryman [2003] HCA 34; 214 CLR 552; Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36; 244 CLR 352; Lynch v Nurdin (1841) 1 QB 29; Manley v Alexander [2005] HCA 79; 80 ALJR 413; McHale v Watson [1966] HCA 13; 115 CLR 199; Newcastle City Council v GIO General Limited [1997] HCA 53; 191 CLR 85; Pennington v Norris [1956] HCA 26; 96 CLR 10; Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 34; 59 ALJR 492; Taylor v Owners – Strata Plan No 11564 [2014] HCA 9; 88 ALJR 473; The Town of Port Headland v Hodder (No 2) [2012] WASCA 212; 43 WAR 383; Verryt v Schoupp [2015] NSWCA 128; Waverley Council v Ferreira [2005] NSWCA 418; Aust. Torts Reports 81 – 818; Wentworth Securities Limited v Jones [1980] AC 74 Texts Cited: New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 29 November 1988 at 3833 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Charmayne Louise Goldsmith by her Tutor (The New South Wales Trustee and Guardian) (Plaintiff) Luke Bisset (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr Maconachie QC with Mr Regattieri for the Plaintiff Mr Stitt QC with Mr Ryan for the Defendant
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