Australian Capital Territory v Badcock - [2000] FCA 142

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Capital Territory v Badcock [2000] FCA 142
NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – appeal from judgment of Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory dismissing an appeal from a Master’s finding that the plaintiff had sustained personal injuries due to the negligence of the Territory and had not been guilty of contributory negligence – function of appeal judges conducting a rehearing – in matters of impression weight should be given to the decision of the trial judge unless some error in the judgment has been demonstrated – duty of care to protect the plaintiff from hazards which are obvious and for which the cost of maintenance and repair are not great – whether the existence of a system for the identification and rectification of hazards discharged the duty of care
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 9(3)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 27
Warren v Coombes [1979] 142 CLR 531, applied
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] 146 CLR 40, referred to
SW Hart & Co Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems [1985] 159 CLR 466, referred to
Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory [1998] 192 CLR 431, distinguished
Turbo Tek Enterprises Inc v Sperling Enterprises [1989] 23 FCR 331, referred to
Pacific Dunlop v Hogan [1989] 23 FCR 553, referred to
Rothwells Ltd v Entity Group Ltd [1990] 101 FLR 460, referred to
Webb v South Australia (1982) 43 ALR 465, applied
Dawson v Westpac Banking Corporation [1991] 104 ALR 295, applied
Commissioner of Taxation v Chubb Australia Ltd [1995] 128 ALR 489, referred to
Allsop Inc v Bintang Ltd [1989] 15 IPR 686, referred to
Hughes v Hunters Hill Municipal Council [1992] 29 NSWLR 232, referred to
Franklins Selfserve Pty Ltd v Bozinovska [1998] NSWSC 456, distinguished
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY v JOSETTE JEAN BADCOCK
A 22 OF 1999
EINFELD, HILL, DRUMMOND, TAMBERLIN & HELY JJ
18 FEBRUARY 2000
SYDNEY [HEARD IN CANBERRA]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 22 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Appellant

AND:

JOSETTE JEAN BADCOCK
Respondent

JUDGES:

EINFELD, HILL, DRUMMOND, TAMBERLIN & HELY JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

18 FEBRUARY 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY [HEARD IN CANBERRA]

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.the appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders are dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 22 OF 1999

ON APPEAL FROM A FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Appellant

AND:

JOSETTE JEAN BADCOCK
Respondent

JUDGES:

EINFELD, HILL, DRUMMOND, TAMBERLIN & HELY JJ

DATE:

18 FEBRUARY 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY [HEARD IN CANBERRA]

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JUSTICE EINFELD
Introduction

The Territory appeals from a judgment of its…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Australian Capital Territory v Badcock and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] FCA 142
Decision Date: 18 FEBRUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between the Australian Capital Territory and Badcock, concerning a claim for damages. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue for the court was to determine whether the appeal against the decision of the Master, who found that the plaintiff was not the author of her own misfortune, should be upheld. The appeal court was tasked with reviewing the primary decision and determining the proper inferences to be drawn from the facts established by the Master.

The court considered the principles established in Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531, which outline the role of an appellate court in reviewing a decision made by a trial judge. The court emphasised that the appellate court is generally in as good a position as the trial judge to decide on the proper inference to be drawn from established facts. However, the appellate court must still give respect and weight to the conclusion of the trial judge when making its own determination. The court concluded that the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory did not fail to apply these principles in their decision, and thus the appeal should be dismissed.

In light of the court's determination, the appeal was dismissed with costs. The orders of the court were in accordance with Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules, which governs the settlement and entry of orders.

ORDERS:
1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. the appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders are dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

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

In my view, the Master was correct to hold that these arguments, even if factual, did not mean, when put with the rest of the evidence, that the plaintiff was the author of all or some of her own misfortune. Justice Higgins, with whom Justice Gallop agreed, was correct to agree that this was so.Conclusion The appeal should be dismissed with costs. I have read in draft the judgments of members of the Court and agree with orders proposed by Einfeld J and his Honour’s conclusions both on negligence and contributory negligence. Although I would conclude that there was no failure on the part of Gallop and Higgins JJ to apply the principle in Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531, 552-553 there are statements in their Honours reasons, referred to by Hely J, which cause some concern and I agree with his Honour that Warren imposes no requirement that the appeal court conclude the primary decision was “plainly wrong” or treat the decision as correct simply because there was some evidence to support it. I agree with the order proposed by Einfeld J for the reasons given by his Honour. Even if the case should be dealt with on the basis that the task for the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was to determine the proper inferences to be drawn from the findings of primary fact made by the Master in circumstances in which no significant issue of credit was involved, I do not consider that the judges of the Full Court failed to apply the principles in Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531. There, at 551, Gibbs ACJ, Jacobs and Murphy JJ dealt with the role of an appeal court charged, as was the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, with conducting an appeal by way of rehearing where the critical question is the proper inferences to be drawn from established facts. Their Honours said:“… Shortly expressed, the established principles are, we think, that in general an appellate court is in as good a position as the trial judge to decide on the proper inference to be drawn from facts which are undisputed or which, having been disputed, are established by the findings of the trial judge. In deciding what is the proper inference to be drawn, the appellate court will give respect and weight to the conclusion of the trial judge, but, once having reached its own conclusion, will not shrink from giving effect to it.” Even though the appellate court in such a situation is, in general, “in as good a position as the trial judge to decide on the proper inference”, their Honours accept that the decision of the trial judge is not to be simply ignored by the appeal court: it must, in deciding upon the proper inference to be drawn, “give respect and weight to the conclusion of the trial judge”. This formula appears constantly in the cases dealing with the proper function of a court charged with conducting an appeal by way of rehearing. It appears in the passages in Edwards v Noble (1971) 125 CLR 296 at 318 and Coghlan v Cumberland [1898] 1 Ch 704 at 705, relied on by Kirby J in State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (1999) 160 ALR 588 at 615 in his summary of the position, in a judgment containing the most recent detailed review of the role of such an appeal court.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 22 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Appellant
AND:	JOSETTE JEAN BADCOCK Respondent
JUDGES:	EINFELD, HILL, DRUMMOND, TAMBERLIN & HELY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	18 FEBRUARY 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY [HEARD IN CANBERRA]

JUDGES:	EINFELD, HILL, DRUMMOND, TAMBERLIN & HELY JJ
DATE:	18 FEBRUARY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY [HEARD IN CANBERRA]