Reported Decision:
(2001) 21 NSWCCR 389
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Daw v Toyworld (NSW) Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 25 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40427/99 HEARING DATE(S): 2 February 2001 JUDGMENT DATE:
22 February 2001PARTIES :
Terrence Mervyn Daw (Appellant)
Toyworld (NSW) Pty Ltd (Respondent)JUDGMENT OF: Priestley JA at 1; Sheller JA at 2; Heydon JA at 3
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :DC 2502/98 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Mahoney DCJ
COUNSEL: G B Hall QC/A J Lidden (Appellant)
M J Neil QC/G J Bellew (Respondent)SOLICITORS: Brydens (Appellant)
Bruce & Stewart (Respondent)CATCHWORDS: Evidence - Credibility of plaintiff in personal injury claim - Whether new trial should be ordered - Whether trial judge erred - Whether substantial wrong or miscarriage occasioned by errors of trial judge - Documents of unknown origin - Lack of objection to tender of evidence - Unproven doctor's history as part of expert evidence - Supreme Court Rules Pt 51 r 25 - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55(1), 56(2) and 60. ND - LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 CASES CITED: Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
National Australia Bank Ltd v Rusu (1999) 47 NSWLR 309
Ramsey v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642
R v Masters (1992) 26 NSWLR 450
R v O'Halloran [2000] NSWCCA 528
R v Welsh (1996) 90 A Crim R 364DECISION: Appeal dismissed; the appellant is to pay the responent's costs of the appeal
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40427/99
DC 2502/98
PRIESTLEY JA
SHELLER JA
HEYDON JA
22 February 2001
DAW v TOYWORLD (NSW) PTY LIMITED
Evidence - Credibility of plaintiff in personal injury claim - Whether new trial should be ordered - Whether trial judge erred - Whether substantial wrong or miscarriage occasioned by errors of trial judge - Documents of unknown origin - Lack of objection to tender of evidence - Unproven doctor’s history as part of expert evidence - Supreme Court Rules Pt 51 r 25 - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55(1), 56(2) and 60.
The appellant, who was the plaintiff at first instance, was employed by the respondent company and on 27 March 1990 he was injured whilst in that employ. The appellant claimed damages from the respondent for that injury, alleging at trial that the injury resulted from a carton falling onto him. The trial judge did not accept the appellant’s evidence, instead finding that the accident on that day was caused by his lifting of a carton. The plaintiff’s evidence in relation to back injuries and treatment prior to the accident was also disbelieved by the trial judge. A document was admitted into evidence (Exhibit 13) which stated that the appellant had experienced previous back problems and had undergone traction. Exhibit 13 was treated by the trial judge as the notes of a Dr Thurai on the appellant’s medical history. The appellant’s…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Daw v Toyworld (NSW) Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2001] NSWCA 25
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, specifically documents of unknown origin and an unproven doctor's history as part of expert evidence, and whether the lack of objection to the tender of this evidence at trial precluded the plaintiff from raising these issues on appeal. The Court was required to consider the application of the *Supreme Court Rules* Pt 51 r 25 and ss 55(1), 56(2), and 60 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW) in determining whether a substantial wrong or miscarriage had occurred.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. While the precise reasoning is not detailed in the provided text, the outcome suggests that the Court found no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice had been occasioned by any alleged errors of the trial judge. This likely involved a consideration of whether the evidence admitted, despite its alleged defects, did not ultimately prejudice the plaintiff's case to the extent of requiring a new trial, or whether the failure to object at trial was a significant factor in the Court's decision.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed; the appellant is to pay the responent's costs of the appeal
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.