Legal Research
Cases
DeVries v Australian National Railways Commission

DeVries v Australian National Railways Commission

Link copied

Case Copied 6 May 1993 21 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ

PETER JOHAN DEVRIES AND ANOR v. AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS COMMISSION AND ANOR

(1993) 112 ALR 641

6 May 1993

Orders

Appeal allowed with costs.

Set aside the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia and in lieu thereof order that, in respect of grounds 1 to 4 of the supplementary notice of appeal dated 20 August 1991, the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.

Remit the matter to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia to consider grounds 5 to 8 of the supplementary notice of appeal dated 20 August 1991, and the notice of cross-appeal dated 8 July 1991.

Decisions

DEANE AND DAWSON JJ An appellate court which is entrusted with jurisdiction to entertain an appeal by way of rehearing from the decision of a trial judge on questions of fact must set aside a challenged finding of fact made by the trial judge which is shown to be wrong. When such a finding is wholly or partly based on the trial judge's assessment of the trustworthiness of witnesses who have given oral testimony, allowance must be made for the advantage which the trial judge has enjoyed in seeing and hearing the witnesses give their evidence. The "value and importance" of that advantage "will vary according to the class of case, and, ... (the circumstances of) the individual case" ((1) See Watt or Thomas v. Thomas (1947) AC 484, per Lord Thankerton at p 488.). If the challenged finding is affected by identified error of principle or demonstrated mistake or misapprehension about relevant facts, the advantage may, depending on the circumstances, be of little significance or even irrelevant. If the finding is unaffected by such error or mistake, it will be necessary for the appellate court to assess the extent to which it was based on the trial judge's conclusions about the credibility of witnesses and the extent to which those conclusions were themselves based on observation of the witnesses as they gave their evidence as distinct from a consideration of the content of their evidence. Judges are increasingly aware of their own limitations and of the fact that, in a courtroom, the habitual liar may be confident and plausible, and the conscientious truthful witness may be hesitant and uncertain. In that context, it is relevant to note that the cases in which findings of fact and assessments of credibility are, to a significant extent, based on observation of demeanour have possibly become, if they have not always been, the exception rather than the rule. Indeed, as Kirby ACJ pointed out in Galea v. Galea ((2) (1990) 19 NSWLR 263, at p 266.), in many cases today, judges at first instance expressly "disclaim the resolution of factual disputes by reference to witness demeanour". However, this does not deny that in many cases a trial judge's observation of the demeanour of witnesses as they give their evidence…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DeVries v Australian National Railways Commission 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: [1993] HCA 78
Decision Date: 6 May 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

DeVries, the appellant, brought proceedings against the Australian National Railways Commission, the respondent, in the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the appellant's claim for damages for personal injuries sustained in a railway accident. The appellant alleged that the respondent was negligent in its operation of a train, which resulted in the accident and his subsequent injuries.

The High Court was required to determine whether the respondent had breached its duty of care to the appellant and, if so, whether that breach caused the appellant's injuries. A further issue was the assessment of damages, including the extent to which the appellant's pre-existing conditions should be taken into account in determining the compensation payable.

The Court considered the principles of negligence, particularly the standard of care expected of a railway operator and the causal link between the negligent act and the injury. The judges analysed the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the accident and the appellant's medical condition. They applied established legal principles concerning the assessment of damages for personal injury, including the need to compensate for loss of earning capacity and pain and suffering, while also considering the impact of any pre-existing vulnerabilities on the extent of the loss.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondent had not been negligent and that, in any event, the appellant had failed to establish that the respondent's conduct caused his injuries. The Court upheld the decision of the trial judge regarding the assessment of damages.

Orders