Dyldam Developments Pty Limited v Jones

Dyldam Developments Pty Limited appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against findings of fact and the reasons of the primary judge in a dispute concerning economic loss. The primary judge had awarded damages for economic loss to the respondent, Mr Jones, which Dyldam argued were excessive and not adequately supported by the evidence.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge's reasons for disregarding Mr Jones' pre-accident earnings, as evidenced by his tax returns, were insufficient, and whether the rejection of a document tendered late by Dyldam under section 135 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW) was an error. The document in question had been produced late on subpoena, and its rejection was based on the risk of unfair prejudice or undue waste of time.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge's reasons for calculating economic loss at a rate higher than Mr Jones' pre-accident income, as shown in his tax returns, were sufficiently explained. The court also upheld the primary judge's decision to reject the late-tendered document, concluding that its admission would have created a danger of unfair prejudice or undue waste of time, consistent with the principles in section 135 of the *Evidence Act 1995*.

Consequently, Dyldam's appeal was dismissed with costs. However, Mr Jones' cross-appeal was upheld in part, with specific orders regarding costs and the provision of a certificate under the Suitor's Fund Act. The parties were directed to bring in Short Minutes to give further effect to the judgment.