Australian Capital Territory v Nicholas John Bell

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) appealed a decision of the Supreme Court of the ACT concerning a personal injuries claim brought by Nicholas John Bell. The dispute centred on whether an accident suffered by Mr Bell was caused by a hazard on a roadway for which the ACT was responsible. The appeal concerned the ACT's application for leave to raise a new point of law that had not been argued in the original trial.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the ACT was whether to grant the ACT leave to raise a new point on appeal. This point related to the interpretation of the relevant legislation governing the ACT's liability for road hazards, specifically whether the ACT had discharged its duty of care. The Court had to consider the principles governing the grant of leave to raise issues not canvassed at the trial level.

The Court applied established principles regarding the exercise of discretion to grant leave for new points on appeal. It noted that such leave is generally not granted unless the new point is one of law, not of fact, and that its determination does not require further evidence. The Court considered whether the proposed new point was a pure question of law and whether it would be just and convenient to allow it to be raised, taking into account the potential prejudice to the respondent. The Court ultimately determined that the new point was a question of law that could be determined on the existing material and that it was in the interests of justice to allow the appeal to proceed on this basis.