Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Bugeja v Jarrett [2017] NSWCA 219 Hearing dates: 18 August 2017 Date of orders: 01 September 2017 Decision date: 01 September 2017 Before: Gleeson JA at [1]
Emmett AJA at [2]
Davies J at [5]Decision: (1) Appeal allowed.
(2) Set aside the judgment of the District Court (Judge Levy SC) of 18 November 2016.
(3) In lieu, judgment for the defendants.
(4) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs of the trial.
(5) The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal.
(6) The respondent is to have a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW).Catchwords: NEGLIGENCE – motor vehicle accident – whether appellants’ vehicle negligently pulled out onto road and caused accident – whether trial judge’s findings on reliability of witnesses could be supported by the evidence – trial judge gave insufficient weight to inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s account – trial judge erred in assessing evidence of third party involved in the accident as unreliable – trial judge erred in findings on sequence of collisions – appeal upheld – judgment in favour of the appellants Legislation Cited: Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)Cases Cited: Jarrett v Bugeja & Anor [2016] NSWDC 309
Nominal Defendant v Smith [2015] NSWCA 339
Tarabay v Leite [2008] NSWCA 259Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kevin Bugeja (First Appellant)
All Star Commercial Kitchens Pty Ltd (Second Appellant)
Debra Jarrett (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
W Fitzsimmons & M Nesbeth (First and Second Appellants)
D Campbell SC & J Ryan (Respondent)
Hall & Wilcox (First and Second Appellants)
Slater & Gordon (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/369954 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Citation:
- [2016] NSWDC 309
- Date of Decision:
- 18 November 2016
- Before:
- Levy DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2012/9479
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
On 30 March 2010, the respondent was involved in a motor vehicle accident on Victoria Road, Drummoyne where she collided with the rear of a vehicle driven by a Mr Lopez who in turn collided with the rear of a vehicle driven by the first appellant and owned by the second appellant. The second appellant was the owner of the vehicle driven by the first appellant. The respondent brought a claim in negligence against the first and second appellants in the District Court, alleging that the first appellant’s careless entry onto Victoria Road in front of Mr Lopez’s vehicle had caused the accident which resulted in her injuries.
The primary judge found in favour of the respondent on liability. In doing so, he accepted her account of the accident over the accounts given by the first appellant and Mr Lopez, which he found to be unreliable and, in some respects, a reconstruction of the events. Accordingly, the primary judge awarded the respondent $616,250 in damages having found that she was contributorily negligent to the…
Continue reading Bugeja v Jarrett
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bugeja v Jarrett [2017] NSWCA 219
- Case
- [2017] NSWCA 219
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge's findings regarding the reliability of witnesses were adequately supported by the evidence. Specifically, the court considered whether the trial judge had given insufficient weight to inconsistencies in the plaintiff's account, erred in assessing the evidence of a third party involved in the accident as unreliable, and made incorrect findings on the sequence of collisions.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in several respects. It concluded that insufficient weight had been given to inconsistencies in the plaintiff's evidence and that the trial judge's assessment of the third party's evidence as unreliable was not supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge had made errors in determining the sequence of collisions. Consequently, the appeal was upheld.
The judgment of the District Court was set aside, and judgment was entered in favour of the defendants (the appellants). The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the trial, and the respondent (the plaintiff) was ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal, with a certificate granted under the *Suitors’ Fund Act 1951* (NSW).
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal allowed.
(2) Set aside the judgment of the District Court (Judge Levy SC) of 18 November 2016.
(3) In lieu, judgment for the defendants.
(4) The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs of the trial.
(5) The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal.
(6) The respondent is to have a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW).
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.