Kitoko v Mirvac Real Estate Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 152

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kitoko v Mirvac Real Estate Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 152 Hearing dates: 4, 5 and 6 August 2015 Date of orders: 07 August 2015 Decision date: 07 August 2015 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Elkaim SC DCJ Decision: Judgment for the defendants Catchwords: Public liability, plaintiff colliding with a glass panel. Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 Cases Cited: Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320 Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227 Sampco Pty Ltd v Wurth [2015] NSWCA 117 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Vangu Kitoko (Plaintiff) Mirvac Real Estate Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Access Group Solutions (Australia) Pty Ltd (Second Defendant) Representation: Plaintiff in person

Counsel: D Benson (First Defendant) S Glascott (Second Defendant)

Solicitors: Thompson Cooper Lawyers (First Defendant) DLA Piper Australia (Second Defendant) File Number(s): 2013/00295494 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. The plaintiff was born in 1966 in Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the "DRC"). On 5 October 2010 the plaintiff was injured in an incident in the Broadway Shopping Centre in Sydney (the "accident"). He blames the defendants for his injuries and their consequences. 2. The first defendant was the centre manager. The second defendant was the cleaning company contracted to clean the premises. 3. The action is governed by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (the "CLA"). The plaintiff claimed damages under the following heads: non-economic loss, past and future economic loss, past and future medical expenses and past and future domestic care. 4. Although the proceedings were commenced by solicitors acting on behalf of the plaintiff, those solicitors ceased to act in January 2014. Since then the plaintiff has been self-represented. Unfortunately this has led to a number of deficiencies in his case including, for example, his Statement of Particulars not having been updated to reflect his present claim. 5. The defendants denied liability. They said that any duty of care they might have owed to the plaintiff had not been breached. In fact they denied that the plaintiff had been injured in any way similar to that which he alleged. The defendants also challenged the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries. 6. Because the plaintiff was self-represented I afforded him considerable leeway in looking at the limits of his pleadings and his particulars. I also allowed him to give his evidence in chief by way of responding to questions from me as well as giving him the opportunity to add any further comments. The defendants supported this approach (T 20.3 and 51.3).