DODD -v- TAMIGI [2007] WASC 42

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASC 42
Case No:	SJA:1043/2006	Heard:	19 OCTOBER 2006
Coram:	JOHNSON J	Delivered:	26/02/07
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	EDWIN ALFRED DODD VINCENZO GUISEPPE TAMIGI
Catchwords:	Regulatory regimes for restraining loads on vehicles Meeting arbitrary standards Relevance of establishing that vehicle load secure despite being outside the standard Expert evidence "Ultimate issue rule" Whether examination of vehicle or load necessary before expert opinion evidence is received and relied upon
Legislation:	Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Regulations 2002 (WA), reg 12(2)
Case References:	R v Fowler (1985) 39 SASR 440 W Miller & Co v Krupp (Aust) Pty Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 129

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : DODD -v- TAMIGI [2007] WASC 42 CORAM : JOHNSON J HEARD : 19 OCTOBER 2006 DELIVERED : 27 FEBRUARY 2007 FILE NO/S : SJA 1043 of 2006 BETWEEN : EDWIN ALFRED DODD

Appellant

AND

VINCENZO GUISEPPE TAMIGI

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES' COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE S P SHARRATT

File No : GN 971 of 2004

Catchwords:

Regulatory regimes for restraining loads on vehicles - Meeting arbitrary standards - Relevance of establishing that vehicle load secure despite being outside the standard - Expert evidence - "Ultimate issue rule" - Whether examination of vehicle or load necessary before expert opinion evidence is received and relied upon

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Regulations 2002 (WA), reg 12(2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr D L Armstrong

Respondent : Mr T C Russell

Solicitors:

Appellant : Altorfer & Stow

Respondent : State Solicitor

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

R v Fowler (1985) 39 SASR 440
W Miller & Co v Krupp (Aust) Pty Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 129

(Page 3)

JOHNSON J

Introduction

1 The appellant, Edwin Alfred Dodd, appeals against his conviction in the Magistrates Court sitting at Geraldton for driving a motor vehicle whilst its load was not appropriately restrained, contrary to reg 12(2) of the Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Regulations 2002 (WA) ("the regulations").

2 The following are the grounds of appeal on which the appellant relies:

"1. The trial Magistrate erred in law in receiving into evidence as an experts report the report of Dennis Richard Larsen which:-

(a) contained a summary and his interpretation of the provisions of the Local Restraint Guide.

(b) gave his opinion that the load carried by the Defendant did not meet the performance standards as specified in the Load Restraint Guide giving his reasons for the opinion being an issue that the trial Magistrate had to decide.

(c) gave his opinion on the load carried by the Defendant without carry out [sic] any tests including G-Force tests on a load of the same nature.

(d) gave his opinion on the load carried by the Defendant without any knowledge, experience or…

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 Dodd v Tamigi

Details

AGLC: Dodd v Tamigi [2007] WASC 42
Case: [2007] WASC 42
Decision Date: 27 FEBRUARY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Dodd v Tamigi, the parties were Dodd, the driver, and Tamigi, the insurer of the vehicle in question. The dispute arose from a regulatory breach involving the restraint of a load on a vehicle. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue was whether the driver had contravened a statutory requirement by restraining the load in a manner that did not comply with the prescribed standards. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the driver's compliance with the arbitrary standards was relevant, and if so, whether it was sufficient to establish that the vehicle load was secure despite being outside the standard. Another issue was whether expert evidence was necessary to determine if the vehicle or load had been examined before relying on the expert's opinion.

The court held that the statutory requirement was clear and did not permit a deviation from the prescribed standards. However, the court found that compliance with arbitrary standards was relevant and could be sufficient to establish the security of the load. The "ultimate issue rule" was also considered, which generally precludes an expert from giving evidence on the ultimate issue to be decided by the court. The court determined that the rule did not apply in this instance as the expert's opinion was not on the ultimate issue but rather on the technical aspects of the load restraint. The court further held that while examining the vehicle or load before providing expert evidence was not strictly necessary, it was highly relevant and should be considered when forming an opinion.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision that the driver had contravened the statutory requirement by restraining the load in a manner outside the prescribed standards. The court found that the driver's compliance with arbitrary standards was not sufficient to establish the security of the load, and that the driver had failed to meet the regulatory requirements. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to prescribed standards and regulations when restraining loads on vehicles to ensure safety and compliance with the law.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.