ALEXANDER -v- MANLEY [2004] WASCA 140
| (2004) 29 WAR 194 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 140 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:80/2003 | 21 APRIL 2004 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER J EM HEENAN J LE MIERE J | 30/06/04 | |
| 26 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed Judgment entered for appellant Damages to be apportioned for contributory negligence | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | IAIN STEWART ALEXANDER WAYNE EDWARD MANLEY |
Catchwords: | Appeal Personal injury Negligence Duty of care Contributory negligence Apportionment of damages Rules of evidence Cross-examination The Evidence Act, s 22 Whether a party requiring crossexamining counsel to tender a document must make the request during crossexamination Application to be made promptly |
Legislation: | Evidence Act, s 22 |
Case References: | Gregory v Tavernor (1833) 6 Car & P 280; 172 ER 1241 Hatziparadissis v GFC (Manufacturing) Pty Ltd [1978] VR 181. , Holland v Reeves (1835) 7 Car & P 36; 173 ER 16 March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 McGregor v The Queen [1984] 1 Qd R 256. , Palmer v Maclear & M'Grath (1858) 1 Sw & Tr 149; 164 ER 670 R v Anderson (1929) 21 CrAppR 178 R v Foggo; Ex parte Attorney-General [1989] 2 Qd R 49 R v Trotter (1982) 7 A Crim R 8. , R v Weatherstone (1968) 12 FLR 14 Senat v Senat [1965] P 172. , Stroud v Stroud [1963] 1 WLR 1080 Teubner v Humble (1963) 108 CLR 491 Trade Practices Commission v TNT Management Pty Ltd (1984) 56 ALR 647 Walker v Walker (1937) 57 CLR 630. , Wharam v Routledge (1805) 5 Esp 235; 170 ER 797 Wood v Desmond (1958) 78 WN (NSW) 65 Bayntun v Carlson [2000] WASCA 179; (2000) 31 MVR 331 Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232 Cook v Cook (1986) 162 CLR 376 J Boag & Son Brewing Ltd v Bridon Investments Pty Ltd [2001] TASSC 16 Mazinski v Bakka (1979) 20 SASR 350 McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306 Morrison-Knudsen Co Inc et al v British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority (1973) 31 DLR (3d) 633 Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10 Queen's Case, Re (The Queen's case) (1820) 2 Brod & Bing 284; (1820) 129 ER 976 R v Harrison [1966] VR 72 Wallace Harold Virgo (1978) 67 Cr App R 323 Van Den Heuvel v Tucker [2003] SASC 110 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : ALEXANDER -v- MANLEY [2004] WASCA 140 CORAM : STEYTLER J
- EM HEENAN J
LE MIERE J
- Appellant
AND
WAYNE EDWARD MANLEY
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : O'SULLIVAN DCJ
Citation Number : [2003] WADC 109
File Number : CIV 17 of 2001
Continue reading Alexander v Manley
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Alexander v Manley [2004] WASCA 140
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 140
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Alexander v Manley, the plaintiff, Alexander, sought compensation from the defendant, Manley, for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The dispute centred on whether Manley was negligent in causing the accident and the extent of Alexander’s contributory negligence. The case was initially heard in the County Court of Victoria and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The primary legal issues before the court involved establishing whether Manley owed a duty of care to Alexander, the extent of this duty, and if Manley breached it, leading to the accident. Additionally, the court had to determine the degree of contributory negligence attributable to Alexander, and how damages should be apportioned accordingly. Another significant issue was whether the trial judge correctly applied the rules of evidence, particularly regarding the timing of a request for a document to be tendered during cross-examination.
The Supreme Court found that the County Court judge had erred in applying the rules of evidence. Specifically, the Court held that if a party required cross-examining counsel to tender a document, the request must be made during cross-examination and promptly. The Court noted that Alexander had not made a timely request for the document during the cross-examination, which led to an incorrect application of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the Court held that the County Court's judgment should be set aside, and the case remitted for re-trial. In light of these findings, the Court also found that the trial judge had correctly assessed the contributory negligence of Alexander and ordered that damages be apportioned accordingly.
The appeal was allowed, and judgment was entered in favour of Alexander. The case was remitted to the County Court for re-trial with instructions on the correct application of the Evidence Act. The Court also directed that damages be apportioned for Alexander’s contributory negligence.
The primary legal issues before the court involved establishing whether Manley owed a duty of care to Alexander, the extent of this duty, and if Manley breached it, leading to the accident. Additionally, the court had to determine the degree of contributory negligence attributable to Alexander, and how damages should be apportioned accordingly. Another significant issue was whether the trial judge correctly applied the rules of evidence, particularly regarding the timing of a request for a document to be tendered during cross-examination.
The Supreme Court found that the County Court judge had erred in applying the rules of evidence. Specifically, the Court held that if a party required cross-examining counsel to tender a document, the request must be made during cross-examination and promptly. The Court noted that Alexander had not made a timely request for the document during the cross-examination, which led to an incorrect application of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the Court held that the County Court's judgment should be set aside, and the case remitted for re-trial. In light of these findings, the Court also found that the trial judge had correctly assessed the contributory negligence of Alexander and ordered that damages be apportioned accordingly.
The appeal was allowed, and judgment was entered in favour of Alexander. The case was remitted to the County Court for re-trial with instructions on the correct application of the Evidence Act. The Court also directed that damages be apportioned for Alexander’s contributory negligence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Judgment entered for appellant
Damages to be apportioned for contributory negligence
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.