Collins v Tabart

Collins (the appellant) and Tabart (the respondent) were involved in a motor vehicle collision. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision that favoured the respondent's version of events. The primary judge had found inconsistencies in the evidence presented at trial and ultimately preferred the respondent's account of the collision. The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's argument that there had been a material error in the trial judge's findings.

The central legal issues before the High Court, upon an application for special leave to appeal, concerned whether the Court of Appeal had erred in upholding the primary judge's findings of fact regarding the collision, particularly given the conflicting evidence presented. The appellant sought to challenge the concurrent findings of fact made by both the primary judge and the Court of Appeal, which were critical to determining liability for the accident.

The High Court, comprising Gleeson CJ, Kirby, Hayne, Crennan, and Kiefel JJ, considered the appellant's arguments. Their Honours noted the difficulty in disturbing concurrent findings of fact made by two lower courts, especially in a case involving a motor vehicle collision where the primary judge had carefully considered the evidence and made specific findings. The Court concluded that there were no grounds to grant special leave to appeal.

Consequently, special leave to appeal was revoked, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.