Legal Research
Cases
Bond v Cerruto

Bond v Cerruto

Case [2002] QCA 453 25 October 2002

Appeal

Limitation Periods

Res Judicata

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2002] QCA 453

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
CULLINANE J
HOLMES J

Appeal No 3631 of 2002

LEESA MAREE BOND Appellant (Plaintiff)

and

JOHN MICHAEL CERRUTO Not party to appeal (First Defendant)

ARTHUR JOSEPH PALK First Respondent (Second Defendant)

COLES MYER LTD Second Respondent (Third Defendant)

THE COUNCIL OF THE
SHIRE OF PINE RIVERS Not party to appeal (Fourth Defendant)

STATE OF QUEENSLAND Not party to appeal (Fifth Defendant)

NOMINAL DEFENDANT Third Respondent (Defendant by Election)

FAI GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD Not party to appeal (Defendant by Election)

BRISBANE

..DATE 25/10/2002

ORDER

MS J A STURGESS (of McInnes Wilson Lawyers) for the applicants

MR S McGHIE (of Richardson McGhie Solicitors) for the respondent/appellant

DAVIES JA: I order in terms of the draft, initialled by me and placed with the papers in the file.

-----

Details

AGLC: Bond v Cerruto [2002] QCA 453
Case: [2002] QCA 453
Decision Date: 25 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bond v Cerruto, the appellant, Leesa Maree Bond, sought an appeal against the decision of the trial judge in the District Court of Queensland. The primary dispute revolved around the issue of whether the trial judge erred in his decision to exclude certain evidence which Bond argued was crucial to her claim. Bond had alleged that she suffered injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident caused by John Michael Cerruto. The respondents included Arthur Joseph Palk, Coles Myer Ltd, and others.

The legal issues central to the appeal were whether the trial judge misapplied the principles of relevance and admissibility of evidence, and if the exclusion of certain evidence amounted to a significant error that could have affected the outcome of the trial. Specifically, Bond contended that the trial judge should have admitted evidence concerning a prior accident involving Cerruto and a statement made by a witness, which she believed would support her case. The respondents argued that the evidence was not relevant or admissible under the rules of evidence.

In addressing these issues, the Court of Appeal examined the trial judge's reasoning and the applicable legal principles. The court noted that the trial judge had exercised discretion in determining the admissibility of the evidence, and such decisions are generally left to the trial judge's sound discretion. The Court found that the trial judge's decision to exclude the evidence was not an error that warranted an appeal, as the evidence did not meet the threshold of relevance or admissibility required by law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the original decision of the District Court.

Orders