2025/00319946
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 13/10/25 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 3.1 MB) |
| 21/1/26 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 1.1 MB) |
| 26/2/26 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 236.5 KB) |
| 13/3/26 | Appellant | Certification for Publication (PDF, 104.6 KB) |
| 13/3/26 | Respondent | Certification for Publication (PDF, 81.4 KB) |
TORTS (other) – Maria Ioannidis was walking her dog Lexi, a shih tzu, along a suburban street in Mortdale when Mellisa Carretero’s dog, a greyhound Staffordshire bull terrier cross, ran down the street unrestrained and attacked Lexi – Ms Ioannidis commenced proceedings in the District Court seeking damages for “bodily injury” under s 25 of the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) – Ms Ioannidis admitted that she was the owner of the attacking dog and that Ms Ioanidis was wounded in the course of the attack upon Lexi but did not admit her dog attacked the plaintiff – Ms Ioannidis gave evidence of her physical injuries as well as her emotional state during and after the attack and its impact on her employment and business – Ms Carretero argued that s 25 accommodates damages in respect of physical injury and psychiatric injury arising out of both the attack on the plaintiff and her physical injuries, but not psychiatric injury suffered as a result of the trauma associated with the attack on Lexi – the primary judge accepted this was the correct position (without considering, in light of Ms Carretero’s concession, whether s 25 was more restrictive) and allowed damages in the sum of $101,788.63 – whether the primary judge erred accepting Ms Ioannidis’ evidence of psychological incapacity, and the impact of the attack on her earning capacity – whether the primary judge erred in law in misapplying the principles of causation, including s 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) – whether the assessment of damages was manifestly excessive and not supported by the evidence – whether the primary judge’s findings were unsafe, contrary to the weight of the evidence and inconsistent with the documentary and expert evidence – whether the primary judge erred in failing to adequately consider alternative and pre-existing causes of the Respondent's psychological condition – whether fresh evidence sought to be adduced on appeal demonstrates that Ms Ioannidis misled the Court regarding her capacity to work and the severity of her psychological condition.
Last updated: