A: What is the full case citation?
The full case citation is Novakovic v Stekovic  NSWCA 54
B: (1) what are the names of the parties?
The names of the parties are the appellant and the respondents. (2) Who is the ‘appellant’? Who is the ‘respondent’? In this case, the appellant is Mileva Novakovic and the respondents are Michael Stekovic and Snezana Stekovic. (3) Please explain why the parties are not referred to as the ‘plaintiff’ and the ‘defendant’? Parties are called as the plaintiff and defendant when it is the first hearing of a case. In this case it is not an original case but had been appealed. Hence the two parties would be appellant and respondents. In addition, during the appeal case, the party which against previous result will become as appellant and the party which be sued by the appellant will becomes respondent.
C: (1) What is the name of the court?
The hearing of this case was held in the Court of Appeal of the New South Wales Supreme Court. (2) In which jurisdiction does this court operate?
The court of appeal operates within appellate jurisdiction. It has the legal power to alter previous decision of the lower courts.
D: (1) What happened in this case?
On 19 January 2008, the appellant (Mileva Novakovic) was invited to the respondents’ (Michael Stekovic and Snezana Stekovic) house fortnightly during that period. On 19 June 2008, the appellant and three female relatives went to the respondents’ premises and injured herself after she saw the dogs (which is fed by the respondents) appear in the lounge. The injured happened due to the appellant terrified of the dog and attempted to retreat from the house then slipped and fell in the patio. In consequence the appellant required surgery and prevented her from returning to work for six months. In the appeal hearing the appellant argued that the primary judge wrongly estimate that a dog sitting in the house was insignificant for a person who terrified of the dog, thus he wrongly...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document