Croucher v Cachia

[2015] NSWCA 365

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Croucher v Cachia [2015] NSWCA 365
Hearing dates:	26 October 2015
Date of orders:	26 October 2015
Decision date:	26 October 2015
Before:	Tobias AJA
Decision:	1.   Order that the hearing of the appeal be expedited and that the parties have leave to approach the Registrar forthwith for the purpose of obtaining a date early in the new year for the hearing of the appeal.  2.   Direct the applicant to bring in short minutes of order containing the necessary undertakings which would need to be signed by not only counsel but also by the applicant’s wife as she is not a party to the proceedings.
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE – judgments and orders – whether orders should be stayed pending appeal – whether applicant has arguable case – stay granted subject to conditions – undertakings to the Court
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 97
Cases Cited:	Bobolas v Waverley Council [2014] NSWCA 78 Lawrence v Gunner [2015] NSWCA 322
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Ronald James Croucher (Appellant) Dennis Peter Cachia (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms E Glover (Appellant) Mr McCarthy (Respondent)   Solicitors: Nyman Gibson Miralis Solicitors (Appellant) AC Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2015/00164957
Publication restriction:	Nil
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: District Court of NSW Jurisdiction: Civil Date of Decision: 18 May 2015 Before: Norton SC DCJ File Number(s): 2013/275470

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. On 18 May 2015 her Honour Judge Norton SC entered a verdict and judgment in favour of the respondent, the plaintiff in the Court below, in the sum of $236,031.04 plus costs.

2. On 3 June 2015 the applicant filed a Notice of Intention to Appeal and a Notice of Appeal was filed on 7 August 2015. The case involved a dispute between neighbours who apparently had been feuding for approximately a decade. At the time of the events in question which occurred in January 2012 the applicant was a gentleman of 77 years of age and the respondent was a gentleman of 55 years of age.

3. The dispute on the occasion in question arose over a hedge that divided the two properties in which the parties lived. At the time the applicant had a set of shears that he was using to trim his hedge. The respondent alleged that he was injured by the applicant who came towards him with the shears and which resulted in him sustaining some injuries from the blades of the shears.

4. The applicant’s defence was that he was in fact assaulted by the respondent and that he held up the shears in self-defence and it was a consequence of that that the respondent was injured.

5. The trial judge had the benefit of not only the evidence of the applicant and the respondent but also of their respective wives. However, her Honour found that the evidence of the applicant’s wife was of no assistance but she accepted the evidence of the respondent’s wife which in some respects corroborated his version…