Brooke Catlin loses appeal after the respondent is thrown off Ms Catlin’s moving car

Mar 27, 2023 | Publication

In a recent decision of the NSW Court of Appeal, Brooke Catlin (the appellant) appealed against the judgment of Curtis ADCJ (the primary judge) who found that the appellant was liable in negligence to Taylor Draper (the respondent) under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (CLA) and that the respondent’s damages ought be reduced by 25% for her contributory negligence.

In April 2017, the respondent travelled to Coolangatta to visit friends. By about 1am, she was in a park near Boundary Street. At about that time, Ms Ribbons, who was also in the park, telephoned the appellant to ask for a lift home. When the appellant, a provisional driver, arrived, Ms Ribbons, her boyfriend and another male (all three of whom were under 25 years of age) got into the vehicle.

The appellant started to drive along Boundary Street at a slow speed because of the number of people in the vicinity. At that point, the respondent ran towards the car. The appellant stopped the car. The respondent threw herself at the windscreen of the car and cracked it. She then turned around and sat on the bonnet with her back against the windscreen, with her feet out in front of her.

Notwithstanding that the respondent was positioned on the bonnet, the appellant drove the car along Boundary Street. When she turned into Hill Street, the respondent was thrown off the bonnet and suffered serious injuries.

The primary judge found that the appellant was negligent and had failed to establish any of the defences raised (incongruity between the respondent’s criminal conduct and imposing a duty of care on the appellant; illegality at common law and pursuant to s 54 of the CLA and self-defence pursuant to ss 52 and 53 of the CLA). The primary judge also rejected the appellant’s submission that she had acted reasonably in the “agony of the moment”. The primary judge found a deduction for contributory negligence of 25%.

The appellant challenged several findings of fact and submitted that the primary judge ought to have found that the defences were made out. The appellant also contended that the primary judge’s reasons were inadequate in several respects.

The Court held dismissing the appeal:

(1)   No challenges made by the appellant to the primary judge’s factual findings were made out: [142].

(2)   There was no error in the primary judge’s conclusion that it was not incongruous to find that the appellant owed a duty of care as the respondent’s illegal conduct had ceased by the time the appellant drove with the respondent on her bonnet: [146]; [150].

(3)   The appellant bore the onus of proving that she acted reasonably in the “agony of the moment”, which was not discharged: [125]-[128].

(4)   The appellant’s conduct in driving at 1.20am with three passengers under 25 years of age in breach of the conditions of her provisional licence constituted an offence, which caused the respondent’s injuries. Accordingly, s 54(2) of the CLA applied, thereby making s 54(1) inapplicable.

(5)   The judicial obligation to give reasons can be fulfilled in different ways: [154]. Having regard to the structure of the judgment of the primary judge, the primary judge’s reasons were sufficient, except in respect of contributory negligence: [160]; [177]. The failure with respect to contributory negligence had no effect as no re-trial was sought and no greater reduction for contributory negligence was warranted: [190].

The decision provides a useful discussion of the defence of illegality under the common law and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) and the ‘agony of the moment’ defence.

The case of Catlin v Draper [2023] NSWCA 49 can be read in full here.

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.

Latest Insights

New Coercive Control Laws in NSW as of 1 July 2024

From 1 July 2024, coercive control will be a crime in NSW when a person uses abusive behaviours towards a current or former intimate partner with the intention to coerce or control them. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Coercive Control) Act 2022makes it an...

Key Rules on Discovery Procedures for Prospective Defendants

Rules 5.2 and 5.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (UCPR) provide essential guidelines on discovery aimed at identifying or locating prospective defendants. These rules are instrumental in the pre-litigation process, ensuring that applicants can gather...

5 Ways A Director Can Be Sued

Directors can be sued for all sorts of reasons.  Here are 5 of them. Reason #1: Insolvent Trading A director can be sued if the company he or she is a director of trades whilst insolvent.  A director has a duty to prevent the company trading and incurring...

7 Ways to Enforce a Judgment

After a judgment is obtained for an amount of money, there are numerous options open to a judgment creditor in relation to how to enforce the judgment (i.e. how to obtain the money which is owed pursuant to the judgment). Option #1: Issue a Bankruptcy Notice If the...

Who Can Bring a Compensation to Relatives Claim?

In the unfortunate event of a loved one's passing due to negligence or wrongful act, the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 in New South Wales outlines the parameters for pursuing compensation on behalf of the deceased. Understanding who has the legal standing to...

10 Myths of Being Sued

If you or your business are sued, there are many myths about how the legal process will pan out.  Here are 10 myths about the legal process – all are incorrect. Myth #1: The matter will definitely go to a hearing Most matters settle before a Judge decides...