http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC//2019/344.

html - tort - damages –

limitation period issues

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC//2019/335.html - NSW work comp

– working for father

Adam Bsisou v Imad Bsisou t/a Quick Chip Tree Lopping

[2019] NSWDC 335 (19 July 2019)
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC//2019/333.html - NSW MVA

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2019/293.html - NSW Workcomp -

employer responsibility for deliberate conduct

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2019/318.html - NSW MVA

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2019/170.html- NSW MVA

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCC/2019/1007.html - Vic Workcover -

Serious Injury based on earnings

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC//2019/962.html - validity of Offer of

comp

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2019/876.html - med neg

Bucic v Arnej

 A brick cleaner was working on a residential building site

 He fell approximately 4.5 metres from deficient scaffolding onto a pile of bricks below.
 The Def was the sole trader constructing the house
 The 3P was the company that erected the scaffolding
 The proceedings between the Def and 3P resolved before the trial, dismissed by consent.
 At trial, the Court found that the scaffolding was only partially complete, there were no guard
rails, and the defendant admitted to not having inspected the premises in the seven days prior to
the incident.
 The Plf was awarded $1m, comprising of $300k for GD, $400k for eco loss, $250k for g v k, and
medical expenses.
 This particular ruling came after that judgment.
 This is an application by 3P to reopen the third party proceedings
 D was represented by Scott Smith for Moray & Agnew
 3P was represented by Roisin and Dave Myers for Meridian Lawyers – James Hand
 The Q is whether the Court has inherent jurisdiction to vary its own orders dismissing the 3P
proceedings.
 Contribution Agreement was reached whereby the 3P would contribute 21% to any settlement,
verdict, or judgment of the Plf’s action, on the basis that it retained input into quantum.
 Trial was to start on Monday
 On the Saturday, Dave Myers for 3P emailed the Court that the 3P proceedings resolved, and
that he would still appear at the trial on Monday to get orders
 On Monday morning, Plaintiff wrote to Dave Myers (3P) that the Plaintiff was willing to accept
all in offer of $550k, which was open until 2 pm on the same day.
 In response to the Plaintiff’s offer, Dave Myers provided a document to Def, saying that the 3P
was willing to pay 21% of $550k inclusive of costs and disbs.
 The D did not respond.
 So when they got to Court, the Court made orders that the 3P proceedings be dismissed, with
no order as to costs.
 The Court was adjourned that afternoon
 James Hand and Plf’s solicitor agreed to reopen the Plf’s offer to the next day.
 That night James Hand wrote to the Def that it consider the Plf’s offer to be reasonable and
should be accepted, and that if the Def obtains a result less favourable than the offer, then the
3P will apply for D to pay all the damages and costs above $550k
 No response by D
 Judgment for Plf entered for $1m.
 3P sought that it only pays 21% of the $550k notwithstanding the $1m judgment
 Justice Zammit says that the Court does not have inherent jurisdiction to vary its own order
unless there’s an injustice or inequity
 In this case no evidence of fraud or breach of natural just
 TP understood exactly the contribution agreement it was entering into – the agreement does
not limit the quantum.
 D says that 3P is trying to unilaterally vary a contract that D has not agreed to.
  The alleged unconsciounable conduct by D occurred after the order was made & after the
proceeding between D and 3P was dismissed.

Brighten v Traino

 NSWCA case
 The Plf was with her friend at a bar
 Plf’s friend became intoxicated
 Licensee /occupier (D) thought that the Plf’s friend should be removed from the premises
 The D asked his friend, who is a trained security guard (but not his employee) to do so
 Plf followed them outside
 Plf’s friend moved aggressively back towards Def’s friend, the trained security guard
 The Def’s friend moved backwards
 At this point the Plf was directly behind the Def’s friend
 She grabbed his shirt, trying to stop him from falling on her
 The security guard turned over and punched her breaking her jaw
 Plf sued both the security guard as intentional tort in battery, and sued the D in negligence on
the basis that the D had duty to protect Plf from actions of other patrons including the trained
security guard
 She failed against both in the District Court, the judge said that the security guard was acting in
self defence, and that the D /owner/occupier had no notice of the potential risk to P
 In the CA, the Court held that the security guard was not acting in self-defence because the Plf’s
action in grabbing his shirt was not unlawful.
 The CA maintained the lower court’s decision that the Plf failed as against the owner/occupier in
establishing breach of DOC, because they had no sufficient warning that the security guard
would act unreasonably.
 But the takeaway point is that the owners and operators of licensed premises owes a DOC to its
patrons even when the patrons are no longer on their premises.