Appeal Outcome: Special leave refused with costs by the High Court - 28 August 2008(S163/2008; S164/2008; S165/2008; S167/2008; S168/2008; S199/2008; S200/2008; S201/2008)
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: BELL v VEIGEL; BELL v BROUGHTON; BROUGHTON v VEIGEL [2008] NSWCA 36 HEARING DATE(S): 29, 30 August 2007
JUDGMENT DATE:
20 March 2008JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Giles JA at 243; Tobias JA at 244 DECISION: Each appeal and Mrs Broughton's cross-appeal upheld with costs. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – New trial – in general and particular grounds – particular grounds – verdict against evidence or weight of evidence – verdict against weight of evidence – when new trial granted – preponderance of evidence in favour of unsuccessful party – where findings on liability not necessarily supported because of gaps within the evidence - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Appeal – general principles – interference with judge’s findings of fact – proof and evidence – other matters – where gap in evidence supporting findings of liability should have been addressed – where conflicting evidence of witness relied upon should have been addressed - PROCEDURE – Judgments or orders – amending, varying and setting aside – other cases adequacy of reasons – whether complainant should have brought adequacy of reasons up prior to entry of judgment – whether complainant should have brought it up when opportunity was given - TORTS – Negligence – contributory negligence – particular cases – road accident cases – whether failure to give way – whether defendant not keeping proper lookout – where defendant has right of way CATEGORY: Principal judgment CASES CITED: Adami v The Ethical Standards Officer [2005] EWCA Civ 1754
Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd v Waugh (1988) 14 NSWLR 360
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Martinez v Western Australia [2007] WASCA 143, 172 A Crim R 389
Smith v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, [1999] NSW Conv R 56,904 (55-884), [1996] 7 BPR 15, 069
Steinberg v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 134 CLR 640
Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon (No 2) [2004] HCA 2, 78 ALJR 321PARTIES: Elwin BELL
Jamie DEE
John VEIGEL bht Paula TALLEN
The Nominal Defendant
Dean Leslie DAVIS
Christine BROUGHTONFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40470/2005; 40471/2005; 40499/2005 COUNSEL: P R Garling SC/ C Thompson (Bell and Dee)
R Letherbarrow SC/ A Stone (Veigel)
L M Morris QC/ J M Morris (Broughton CA40470/05,CA 40499/05)
R McIlwaine SC/ J Davidson (Broughton CA40471/05)
R Stitt QC/ D Wilson (The Nominal Defendant)
R Seton SC/ P Carr (Davis)SOLICITORS: Carrolll & O'Dea (Bell and Dee)
Stacks Goudkamp (Veigel)
Moray & Agnew (Broughton, CA40470/05, CA40499/05)
Keddies Litigation Lawyers (Broughton, CA40471/05)
Sparke Helmore (The Nominal Defendant)
Ferguson Bolton (Davis)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 8279/2002
DC 1082/2004LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Coorey DCJ LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 12 May 2005
27 May 2005
8 September 2005
CA…
Continue reading Bell v Veigel
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Bell v Veigel [2008] NSWCA 36
- Case
- [2008] NSWCA 36
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Bell v Veigel concerned an appeal from a judgment in a negligence claim arising from a road accident. The primary dispute involved allegations of a failure to give way and a failure to keep a proper lookout, despite the defendant having the right of way. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, with Mason P, Giles JA, and Tobias JA presiding.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge's findings of fact regarding liability were supported by the evidence. Specifically, the court considered whether there were significant gaps in the evidence that undermined the findings of liability, and whether conflicting evidence from a key witness had been adequately addressed. The adequacy of the trial judge's reasons for judgment was also a point of contention, including whether the complainant had raised this issue at the appropriate time.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's findings of liability were not sufficiently supported by the evidence presented. The court noted that gaps in the evidence meant that the findings on liability were not necessarily proven. Furthermore, the court highlighted that conflicting evidence from a witness relied upon by the trial judge had not been adequately addressed. The court also considered the adequacy of the reasons provided by the trial judge.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal upheld each appeal and Mrs Broughton's cross-appeal, ordering that the costs of the appeals be paid.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge's findings of fact regarding liability were supported by the evidence. Specifically, the court considered whether there were significant gaps in the evidence that undermined the findings of liability, and whether conflicting evidence from a key witness had been adequately addressed. The adequacy of the trial judge's reasons for judgment was also a point of contention, including whether the complainant had raised this issue at the appropriate time.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's findings of liability were not sufficiently supported by the evidence presented. The court noted that gaps in the evidence meant that the findings on liability were not necessarily proven. Furthermore, the court highlighted that conflicting evidence from a witness relied upon by the trial judge had not been adequately addressed. The court also considered the adequacy of the reasons provided by the trial judge.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal upheld each appeal and Mrs Broughton's cross-appeal, ordering that the costs of the appeals be paid.
Orders
Orders of the court
Each appeal and Mrs Broughton's cross-appeal upheld with costs.
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.