Campbell v Webster Rometch Limited

In *Campbell v Webster Rometch Limited*, the appellant, Gordon Beresford Campbell (an infant suing by his next friend), sought damages for personal injuries sustained as a passenger on a motor omnibus owned by the respondent, Webster Rometch Limited. The action was tried in the Supreme Court of Tasmania before Nicholls C.J. and a jury, who returned a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff's subsequent motion for a new trial was dismissed by Nicholls C.J., and an appeal to the Full Court of Tasmania was also unsuccessful. The plaintiff then appealed to the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial had been conducted in a manner that allowed for a just resolution of the issues between the parties, and consequently, whether a new trial was warranted. This involved considering the refusal of the plaintiff's request for a directed verdict and the subsequent dismissal of the plaintiff's motions for a new trial by the lower courts.

The High Court, in a judgment delivered by Barton J., found that there had been a mistrial. The Court was of the opinion that the case had been presented to the jury in such a way that it was unreasonable to expect them to reach a proper conclusion based on established legal principles. The Court concluded that the trial had not effectively determined the issues between the parties and that the ends of justice had been subverted.

Consequently, the High Court ordered that the appeal from the dismissal of the motion for a new trial be dismissed without costs, while the appeal from the refusal of the directed verdict be allowed, and a new trial be ordered. The costs of the second appeal and the proceedings in the Supreme Court were to abide the event of the new trial.