Edelsten v His Honour Judge Ward & Ors (1)

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by Geoffrey Walter Edelsten against His Honour Judge Ward and other respondents, including members of a medical tribunal. The core of the dispute revolved around the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, which had relied on its earlier majority decision in *Azzopardi*.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its approach to appeals based on findings of fact. Specifically, the applicant argued that *Azzopardi* stood for the proposition that a perverse finding of fact did not give rise to an appeal on a point of law. The applicant contended that this proposition was incorrect and that there was a division of opinion within the New South Wales Court of Appeal on this important question, with some judges expressing views inconsistent with *Azzopardi*.

The applicant's submission was that the Court of Appeal, in the present case, had followed the majority reasoning in *Azzopardi*, which held that findings of fact that were perverse, meaning contrary to the overwhelming weight of evidence or such that no reasonable person could have made them, were simply wrong in fact and did not raise an error of law. The applicant sought special leave to appeal on the basis that this approach was questionable and that the position adopted in the United Kingdom might be preferable, suggesting a need for the High Court to clarify the law.