Bradley v Matloob

In *Bradley v Matloob*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal from a District Court decision that found the appellant, Mr Bradley, liable for a motor vehicle accident. The central dispute at trial was whether the vehicle involved in the accident was driven by the appellant or an unknown driver, with the plaintiff relying on an eyewitness identification of the appellant's vehicle. The appellant denied any involvement in the incident.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in accepting the eyewitness's evidence despite discrepancies in their recollection of the offending vehicle and in failing to address the appellant's denials of involvement. A further issue was whether a finding of liability could be made against the appellant without it being put to him during cross-examination that his denials constituted a lie.

The Court held that the primary judge had erred by failing to address the appellant's denials of involvement. It reasoned that a finding of liability against the appellant necessarily involved concluding that he had falsely denied knowledge of the traffic incident, and this conclusion could not be reached without affording the appellant an opportunity to respond, particularly as the case that he had lied was not run against him at trial. Consequently, the Court set aside the finding of liability against the appellant.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the District Court were set aside. In lieu of those orders, judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the Nominal Defendant in the sum of $1,400,000.