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.

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”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.