Australia: The ACT Supreme Court Blitz: a selection of cases by Sidis AJ

Insurance Update
Last Updated: 8 December 2012
Article by Ken Powell and Dan Crowe

This collection of case summaries follows on from the Insurance Flashlight Blog entry, Canberra's Courtroom Blitz. It provides a snapshot for insurers of selected judgments by Sidis AJ handed down in the ACT Supreme Court during the 2012 Civil Blitz.


In Hopps v Domin8 Holdings Pty Limited and Meche Staffing Services Pty Ltd [2012] ACTSC 165, the plaintiff sued the defendants for injuries arising from her alleged assault by a security guard at the first defendant's nightclub in 2009. After the plaintiff discontinued proceedings against the security guard, the remaining defendants were the nightclub owner and employer of the security guard.

Sidis AJ entered default judgment against the defendants in this matter due to their curious continued failure to attend court.

Her Honour awarded the plaintiff $99,870.92 in damages and $32,171.22 in costs.

The plaintiff claimed a range of physical injuries (including a fractured wrist, which required surgery) and psychological shock exacerbating a pre-existing anxiety condition. In the absence of any evidence from the defendants whatsoever, Sidis AJ was largely amenable to the plaintiff's claim and assessment, although ordered lesser amounts under some heads of damages.

What does seem highly unusual about this case was that the defendants do not appear to have been involved in the proceeding at any stage and certainly failed to even file a defence. It is not apparent to us whether the defendants might have had any reasonable basis for defending the plaintiff's claim - although one would at least ordinarily dispute the quantum of the damages claimed by the plaintiff.


In Jaajaa v Australian Capital Territory [2012] ACTSC 130, the plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries allegedly arising from a collision in 2009. The plaintiff was cycling when he collided with a school bus operated by the defendant. The defendant denied negligence, alleged contributory negligence by the plaintiff and challenged the plaintiff's claims of injury.

Sidis AJ found in favour of the defendant on the basis of no breach of duty of care having been proved and awarded costs as agreed or assessed. Her Honour went on to rule that had a breach of duty of care been established, the claim would have failed regardless on causation, and in any event assessed the plaintiff's contributory negligence at 60% and took a very conservative view of the plaintiff's alleged injuries.

The collision occurred when the bus turned left some distance ahead of the plaintiff. The plaintiff (who was listening to a portable music player at the time) collided with the left hand side of the rear half of the bus as it turned the corner.

Sidis AJ found that the driver was not negligent in failing to check his rear-view mirror for the plaintiff in the brief period between the plaintiff catching up to the bus and colliding with it. Her Honour ruled that the driver had taken all reasonable care in the circumstances, including earlier checking for the plaintiff in his mirrors, slowing, and indicating to turn - all giving the plaintiff ample opportunity to stop to avoid collision. Her Honour took into account the fact that children were on board the bus and it was on a busy road, so for the plaintiff to have taken any other action was unreasonable.

Sidis AJ also found the plaintiff's evidence to be unreliable due to the serious state of his mental health. Despite making no findings as to liability on the defendant's behalf, Her Honour went on to assess that the plaintiff's alleged physical injuries were relatively minor, and his alleged psychiatric injuries were not caused by the accident, but had been aggravated by it.

This case demonstrates (as if we needed a reminder) the importance of the credibility of witnesses (particularly so far as mental health issues are concerned) and when a driver's actions will be sufficiently reasonable so as to avoid any findings of negligence against him or her.


In Johnson v Mireku [2012] ACTSC 129, the plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident in 2008. She was struck at low speed while walking across a pedestrian crossing with her infant son. The plaintiff alleged that, as at the date of trial, she was particularly troubled by ongoing pain in her left knee. An anxiety issue had been substantially resolved by the time of the proceedings.

The defendant admitted liability but sought to reduce any award of damages by raising doubts about the nature of the injuries and the plaintiff's credibility.

In simple terms, Sidis AJ dismissed both of the defendant's arguments and awarded the plaintiff $111,816 plus costs as agreed or assessed.

As to the nature of the injuries, Her Honour was critical of the defendant's medical evidence, which wrongly attributed the plaintiff's ongoing injuries to a prior history of knee trouble in contrast to several other expert reports and the plaintiff's account (which Her Honour accepted) of having suffered no ongoing pain prior to the accident. There was also a question as to whether the expert had even formally examined the plaintiff on one occasion.

Sidis AJ found the defendant's medical evidence "not helpful" and ruled that the defendant's expert had formed an adverse opinion on the plaintiff's credibility with no basis - something which was outside his role as an expert medical practitioner.

On the plaintiff's credibility, Her Honour found the plaintiff to be a witness doing her best to be open and honest with the court and that any minor inconsistencies in her testimony were reasonably explicable.

This case serves as a reminder to ensure expert reports tendered in support of a case are thorough, accurate and well-reasoned - and that they are not simply a "hollow echo" of what the commissioning party wants to hear. It's also important to note that medical experts should refrain from impugning a plaintiff's credibility unless they have a strong basis on which to do so.


In Kaufman v Kozac [2012] ACTSC 78, the plaintiff sued the defendant for a range of injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident in 2007, in which her car was rear-ended by the defendant's in a slip lane. The defendant admitted liability but alleged contributory negligence by the plaintiff.

Sidis AJ awarded $40,600 to the plaintiff plus costs as agreed or assessed. Her Honour dismissed the defendant's argument of contributory negligence, but took into account the plaintiff's extensive preaccident medical history in assessing damages.

Additionally, the defendant attacked the plaintiff's credibility, arguing she used her experience as a personal injury insurance claims officer to "manufacture or overstate the extent to which her current condition was the result of the accident".

Whilst Her Honour did not squarely address this issue, she noted it as a complicating factor in assessing damages, and ultimately ruled that "[t]here was no doubt that the plaintiff's claim bore the hallmarks of deceit and exaggeration. She pursued her claim that her back pain commenced from and was the result of the accident in the face of clear medical evidence to the contrary."

Sidis AJ conducted a very thorough analysis of the medical evidence (including the plaintiff's preaccident history) in order to expose these holes in the plaintiff's claim. This case highlights the importance of the forensic approach in defending these types of claims.


In Dixon v Foote & Calvary Health Care ACT Ltd [2012] ACTSC 101 (see also case No 2 and No 3 which addressed damages and costs), the plaintiff (a patient) sued the first defendant (a doctor) for injuries arising from medical negligence in 2004. The plaintiff alleged the first defendant was negligent in recommending and performing gynaecological procedures and in the defendant's post-operative care of the plaintiff. Proceedings against the second defendant (the hospital) were ultimately not pursued.

Sidis AJ awarded the plaintiff $284,427.16 in damages plus costs (being a combination of "standard" party/party costs and indemnity costs).

Her Honour found the first defendant to be negligent on all alleged counts, as well as parts of his evidence to be unreliable. Her Honour also ruled that, following the surgery, the first defendant lied to the plaintiff about a pre-existing condition in an attempt to dissuade her from bringing a claim in negligence.

Prior to the surgery, the first defendant advised the plaintiff in relation to the breakdown of a mesh sling that she had in place to support a prolapsed uterus. In addition to recommending the mesh be rectified, he advised that the plaintiff undergo surgery for an abdominal hysterectomy and sacral colpopexy due to the diagnosis of probable further prolapse.

During the surgery, the plaintiff suffered damage to her ureter and also developed a fistula. This resulted in urine leakage from her bladder and the plaintiff required further corrective surgery.

In the days following the surgery, the plaintiff presented with various problems, which the first defendant viewed as not being out of the ordinary and therefore did not immediately investigate them.

Sidis AJ found that the first defendant failed to exercise reasonable care and skill, and was in breach of his duty of care to the plaintiff, in:

  • Advising the plaintiff to proceed with theabdominal hysterectomy and sacral colpopexy, because this advice was premised on adeficient diagnosis of probable prolapse
  • Performing the surgery, because he failed to follow standard medical practice and caused foreseeable damage to the plaintiff
  • His post-operative care obligations, because he failed to recognise that investigations were necessary to confirm or deny his diagnosis in circumstances where he was confused and where the plaintiff's condition was deteriorating.

Her Honour was satisfied that the first defendant's negligence caused damage to the plaintiff.

The first defendant in this case is a prominent medical practitioner. This case illustrates that - particularly in the case of more complex medical procedures - it is vital for surgeons to be very cautious at all stages of surgery, including leading up to and following the operation.


In Stone v The Owners Units Plan 1214, Nectaria Nominees Pty Ltd, Debra Nominees Pty Ltd and Hawkesbury Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] ACTSC 164, the plaintiff sued the defendants in respect of serious injuries allegedly arising from a fall from an unguarded retaining wall. The plaintiff alleged the defendants were negligent with respect to their occupier's liability by failing to take steps to guard against the risk that the wall presented. The defendants denied liability on the basis of there having been no prior accident history, the fact they engaged independent consultants to design and build the wall and were not vicariously liable for their negligence, and the alleged unreasonable conduct by the plaintiff.

Sidis AJ found it was unlikely the plaintiff fell from the wall and his claim therefore ultimately failed.

However, Her Honour went on to find that the defendants were nevertheless negligent in failing to take steps to guard against the "significant and foreseeable risk" to persons presented by the wall and the 3.5m difference in levels between the properties.

Importantly, Her Honour held that the defendants could not avoid liability by relying on principles relating to: the absence of prior history of accidents; the engagement of independent consultants in designing and building the walls; or the unreasonable conduct of plaintiff.

Her Honour also found contributory negligence of 50% on the plaintiff's behalf. In respect of the independent consultant issue, Her Honour distinguished this case from Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 19. In Sweeney, it was clearly established that the independent contractor was negligent in performing the task he was contractually obliged to do.

In this case, Her Honour found there was little evidence at all about the contractors, let alone that they were contractually obliged to identify and manage all risks associated with the development (and were negligent in failing to do so). On the evidence presented, the consultants were hired to only provide an opinion on whether or not the development met the relevant legal/regulatory requirements.

Although Sidis AJ ultimately ruled in favour of the defendants, this case highlights the importance to occupiers of conducting adequate risk management, and not simply relying on a clean track record and professional design and construction of their facilities as a way of completely avoiding risk and liability.

© DLA Piper

This publication is intended as a general overview and discussion of the subjects dealt with. It is not intended to be, and should not used as, a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. DLA Piper Australia will accept no responsibility for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this publication.

DLA Piper Australia is part of DLA Piper, a global law firm, operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. For further information, please refer to

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Barry.Nilsson. Lawyers
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Barry.Nilsson. Lawyers
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions