Crisp v Burridge

The appeal concerned a dispute between Crisp and Burridge. The Court of Appeal of New South Wales was required to determine whether it should resolve disputed questions of fact or order a new trial.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate course of action when an appeal court identifies errors in a lower court's decision, specifically whether to substitute its own findings or remit the matter for a fresh hearing. This involved considering the principles governing appellate intervention in factual disputes and the circumstances under which a new trial is warranted.

The court ultimately ordered that the matter be remitted to the District Court for a new trial, limited to the question of liability. This decision indicates that the appellate court found it necessary for the factual dispute regarding liability to be reconsidered by a different judge. The costs of the first trial were left to the discretion of the judge presiding over the new trial.