A win for Woolworths against difficult, self-represented plaintiff

Khanna v. Woolworths Group Limited [2022] NSWCA 94

The team at HBA Legal successfully defended a claim made by a difficult, self-represented plaintiff.  After 12 long days of hearing, the Court ultimately found in our client’s favour.

The plaintiff and his wife were shopping at our client’s premises in April 2015 when his wife allegedly fell and sustained an injury. Shortly thereafter, the wife made a claim against our client which was settled on a commercial, without prejudice, basis and without admission of liability.

Some four years later, our plaintiff filed proceedings; prima facie out of time, alleging he was injured in the process of attempting to ‘save’ his wife or prevent her fall, and claiming damages in excess of $1 million. From the outset, while we were confident liability would not be established, we assessed any potential damages at well under $100,000.

Through the course of the matter, the plaintiff failed to reasonably engage with us in respect of settlement. This meant that commercial settlement to offset the cost of running the claim to trial was not an option. Likewise, any application to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution would not resolve any factual disputes and thus would not prevent this plaintiff from bringing suit again. Overall, the best option for our client was to run the matter to hearing.

Ultimately the Court found in our client’s favour, on the basis the plaintiff failed to make out the elements of negligence. While his Honour accepted that the plaintiff did fall, the claimed injuries were not related to, or caused by, the subject incident. His Honour also found the plaintiff’s action was brought out of time and was thus statute barred under the Limitation Act.

The plaintiff subsequently lodged a Summons seeking leave to Appeal which was ultimately refused by the Court of Appeal. This was on the basis that the proposed appeal did not raise any issue of principle or question of general public importance and none of the various complaints made by the plaintiff raised a reasonably clear injustice. While this was the anticipated result, it was welcome in marking the end of the line of this particular claim.