Legal Research
Cases
Davie v Manuel

Davie v Manuel

Case [2024] WASCA 21 7 March 2024

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   DAVIE -v- MANUEL [2024] WASCA 21
CORAM:   BUSS P
VAUGHAN JA
SEAWARD J

HEARD:   4 SEPTEMBER 2023
DELIVERED          :   7 MARCH 2024
FILE NO/S:   CACV 111 of 2022
BETWEEN:   CAROLINE DAVIE
Appellant
AND
DARRYL JUNE MANUEL
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   PETRUSA DCJ
Citation: DAVIE -v- MANUEL [2022] WADC 91
File Number            :   CIV 1675 of 2018

Catchwords:

Tort - Negligence - Duty of care - Causation - Factual causation - Whether trial judge erred in law by failing to comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn - Meaning of 'contrived' - Procedural fairness - Whether trial judge erred in law in failing to provide procedural fairness to appellant - Whether trial judge's conclusion in relation to factual causation illogical or unreasonable - No denial of procedural fairness - No error of law

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), s 5C, s 5D

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	G Droppert SC & A Cavenagh
Respondent	:	D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	CLP Legal
Respondent	:	Mills Oakley

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Agostini [No 2] [2009] WASCA 231
Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 7; (2013) 252 CLR 38
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Burke v Corruption and Crime Commission [2012] WASCA 49
Cameron v Cole [1944] HCA 5; (1944) 68 CLR 571
Chester v WA Country Health Service [2022] WASCA 57
Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576
Davie v Manuel [2022] WADC 91
Defendi v Szigligeti [2019] WASCA 115
East Metropolitan Health Service v Ellis (By His Next Friend Christopher Graham Ellis) [2020] WASCA 147
Frigger v Frigger [2023] WASCA 103
International Finance Trust Co Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission [2009] HCA 49; (2009) 240 CLR 319
Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; (1985) 159 CLR 550
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services [2021] HCA 11; (2021) 243 CLR 361
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2009] WADC 4
Lazarevic v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 156
McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [2013] WASCA 135
Meadowcroft v The State of Western Australia [2023] WASCA 98
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; (2003) 214 CLR 1
Moyes v Ensco Australia Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 104
Nankivell v Insurance Commission of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 143
P v Q [No 2] [2023] WASCA 163
Rowe v Stoltze [2013] WASCA 92; (2013) 45 WAR 116
Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5; (2012) 246 CLR 182
Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19; (2013) 250 CLR 375
Western Australian Planning Commission v The Board of Valuers [2018] WASCA 145

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

Introduction

The appellant, Caroline Davie, appeals from the decision of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Davie v Manuel

Details

AGLC: Davie v Manuel [2024] WASCA 21
Case: [2024] WASCA 21
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Caroline Davie appealed against the dismissal of her claim in negligence against Darryl Manuel, arising from a car accident on 26 June 2015. The appellant claimed damages for personal injuries sustained in the accident. The appellant's case was that the accident was caused by the respondent providing a car with a non-functioning speedometer, which led to the appellant driving at an excessive speed around a bend on Foley Road, causing her to lose control of the car and sustain severe injuries. The primary judge rejected the appellant's case and dismissed the action.

Grounds of appeal were advanced concerning the trial judge's conclusions regarding the appellant's evidence about her use of a speedometer and the causation of the accident. The appellant contended that the trial judge erred in law by not accepting her evidence about the role of a speedometer when driving, and by finding that the lack of a working speedometer did not cause or materially contribute to the accident. The appellant also contended that the trial judge failed to accord her procedural fairness and did not comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn. The appeal was dismissed.

In relation to the first and second grounds of appeal, it was held that the appellant's misunderstanding of the meaning of the term 'contrived' in the trial judge's reasons, and the misconstruction of the trial judge's reasoning process, led to the grounds being unsuccessful. The appellant's evidence was not as described in the grounds of appeal, and in any event, was inadmissible for the purposes of establishing causation. The appellant was on notice that the issues of causation and the role played by the speedometer were in issue between the parties, and the trial judge was not required to accept the appellant's evidence.

In relation to the third ground of appeal, it was held that the trial judge's reasoning process and conclusion regarding factual causation were neither illogical nor unreasonable. The trial judge had carefully considered the evidence and provided logical and rational reasons for not accepting the appellant's evidence about her use of a speedometer and her assessment of speed. The trial judge also did not accept the evidence of the passenger, Mr Lich, as to the speed the appellant was driving prior to the accident, for reasons that were rational and logical. There was nothing unreasonable, illogical or irrational in the reasoning process or the outcome reached by the trial judge.

The fourth ground of appeal, which was dependent on the appellant succeeding on one or more of the first three grounds, was also dismissed. The appeal was dismissed, and further submissions were to be heard as to the appropriate orders, including as to costs.

Orders