Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320
HEARING DATE(S): 15 October 2008
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
3 December 2008
JUDGMENT OF: Basten JA at 1; Macfarlan JA at 9
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES - injury whilst operating rubber tyre gantry - challenge to credit findings - significance of inconsistent histories given to medical practitioners. - REASONS FOR DECISION - extent of obligation to give reasons.
LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents and Compensation Act 1999
Supreme Court Act 1970
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
CASES CITED: Ali v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 183
Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission [1993] HCA 78; (1993) 177 CLR 472
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Huseyin v Container Terminals Australia Ltd [2006] NSWCA 382; (2006) 46 MVR 1
Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd v Gantidis [1979] HCA 20; 140 CLR 675
Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725
Najdovski v Crnojilovic [2008] NSWCA 175
Skinner v Frappell [2008] NSWCA 296
Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57; (2005) 79 ALJR 1816
Wiki v Atlantis Relocations (NSW) Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 174; 60 NSWLR 127
PARTIES:
Container Terminals Australia Limited (Appellant)
Yusuf Huseyin (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40569/07
COUNSEL: K Andrews (Appellant)
P R Sternberg (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: Leitch Hasson Dent (Appellant)
Smallwoods Lawyers (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 2482/04
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Balla DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 3 August 2007



-


                          CA 40569/07
                          DC 2482/04

                          BASTEN JA
                          MACFARLAN JA

                          Wednesday 3 December 2008
CONTAINER TERMINALS AUSTRALIA LTD v YUSUF HUSEYIN

Judgment



1 BASTEN JA: This appeal involves a challenge to an assessment of damages in the District Court in respect of a workplace injury. For the reasons given by Macfarlan JA, I agree that the appeal must be dismissed and that the appellant must pay the respondent’s costs. I would add the following further reasons.


      Inadequacy of reasons

2 The grounds of appeal alleged that her Honour failed, in six separate respects, to give reasons, or adequate reasons, for factual findings. Whilst such challenges are commonplace, they often constitute an insufficient or imprecise basis for appeal, and not infrequently suffer from both defects. Such a challenge may be insufficient because it fails to take into account the nature of the appeal. On an appeal by way of rehearing, pursuant to s 75A of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), this Court has the powers and duties of the Court below to draw inferences and make its own findings of fact: s 75A(6). In particular, those powers include the assessment of damages. Accordingly, it will only be in cases where this Court is unable to proceed to make its own findings that a ground alleging inadequacy (or absence) of reasons will be sufficient. An appeal is against the orders of the Court and it is those…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2008] NSWCA 320
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Container Terminals Australia Ltd (the appellant) appealed a decision of the District Court of New South Wales that awarded damages to Mr Huseyin (the respondent) for injuries sustained while operating a rubber tyre gantry. The appeal primarily challenged the findings of credit made by the primary judge concerning the respondent's evidence.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in accepting the respondent's account of the incident and the extent of his injuries, particularly in light of inconsistencies in the histories provided by the respondent to medical practitioners. The appellant also contended that the primary judge failed to give adequate reasons for accepting the respondent's evidence over the appellant's.

Basten JA and Macfarlan JA, in separate judgments, dismissed the appeal. Their Honours found that the primary judge had adequately considered the inconsistencies in the respondent's medical histories and had provided sufficient reasons for preferring the respondent's evidence. The court applied established principles regarding the assessment of credit, noting that inconsistencies do not automatically render a witness's evidence unreliable, and that the primary judge was entitled to weigh all the evidence, including the respondent's oral testimony and medical records, to reach a conclusion. The significance of inconsistent histories was considered in the context of the overall assessment of the respondent's credibility.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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.