Latest Cases Case Lookup LegislationBeta Notebook Research Briefs

Kalis v New [2017] ACTSC 334 — Appeal & Negligence — Barrister AI

Kalis v New

[2017] ACTSC 334

Supreme Court of the ACT10 November 2017

More

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Civil Law
2. › APPEAL
3. › Re-hearing
4. › motor vehicle accident
5. › whether accident caused by negligent driving
6. › civil standard of proof
7. › balance of probabilities
8. › learned Magistrate erred in identifying a significant number of facts
9. › case turns on its facts
10. › appeal allowed
11. › consideration between parties as to resolution of damages
1. Torts
2. › NEGLIGENCE
3. › Duty of care
4. › whether defendant breached her duty of care
5. › failure to exercise reasonable care and skill
6. › breach of duty was a cause of the collision
7. › contributory negligence not pleaded by defendant

Case Details

Citation[2017] ACTSC 334

CourtACTSC

JurisdictionAustralian Capital Territory

Decision Date10 November 2017

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.

Cited by4

2018CP v Director-General of Community Services Directorate (No 2)ACTSC 201
2018Corkhill v Commonwealth of Australia (No 3)ACTSC 87
2018Limelight Cinemas Pty Ltd v BeattyACTSC 18
2017CP v Director-General of Community Services Directorate and OrsACTSC 394

Relies on42

2017Council of the Law Society of the ACT v Legal PractitionerACTSC 329
2017Glanville v HarrisACTSC 110
2015Ning v McGrathACTSC 163
2015Malek v Remondis Australia Pty LimitedACTSC 135
and 38 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in

See how it works