Aerofako BV v Peck; Morison & Anor v Peck

This matter concerned applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicants, Aerofako BV and James William Morison and Lynda Janette Morison, sought to appeal decisions from lower courts. The respondent was Mr Peck. The core of the dispute involved a plaintiff who suffered severe injuries, with the applicants arguing that the lower courts had inferred a course of events leading to the injury without sufficient evidence, potentially basing their judgments on sympathy rather than factual findings.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was the extent to which a court is permitted to infer a sequence of events causing injury when there is a lack of direct evidence. Specifically, the applicants contended that the findings of the courts below were not adequately supported by the evidence presented, particularly concerning the operation of a product called Finilec, which was intended to mend tyre punctures. The applicants argued that the evidence indicated Finilec might not work instantaneously and that a leak could reoccur, but that the courts had made assumptions about how the injury occurred based on limited factual material.

The applicants' argument focused on the factual circumstances surrounding the plaintiff's injury. They highlighted that the instructions for Finilec indicated it might not work instantly and that driving a short distance was necessary for it to spread and mend a puncture. Evidence suggested that the tyre could leak again. Crucially, the respondent had no recollection of the accident, and no one witnessed it. The only objective evidence was that the tyre, initially flat, became deflated again some time after the incident. The applicants submitted that the lower courts' judgments were based on speculation rather than concrete evidence, leading to a potentially sympathetic but unsupported outcome for the injured plaintiff.