Eggins v Robinson

Case [2000] NSWCA 61

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION:     Clive Eggins & 2 Ors v Allan Robinson [2000]  NSWCA 61

FILE NUMBER(S):
40529/98

HEARING DATE(S):           29 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:            28/04/2000

PARTIES:
Appellants: Clive Eggins, Ivan Connor, Colin Rae Munro
Respondent: Allan Robinson

JUDGMENT OF:      Meagher JA Sheller JA Powell JA   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):        DC 3272/95

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:     Moore DCJ

COUNSEL:
Appellant: JB Whittle SC / BJ Burke
Respondent: F Donohoe

SOLICITORS:
Appellant: Foot. Law & Co (Grafton)
Respondent: Bruce Petrie & Co (Sydney)

CATCHWORDS:
Contract
Oral agreement
Whether corroborative letter was forged
Admissability of expert evidence
No forgery made out
Contract upheld

LEGISLATION CITED:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
District Court Rules Pt 19A

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT:

Clive EGGINS, Ivan CONNOR and Colin Rae MUNRO v Allan ROBINSON

CONTRACT-ORAL AGREEMENT-WHETHER CORROBORATIVE LETTER WAS FORGED-ADMISSABILITY OF EXPERT EVIDENCE-NO FORGERY MADE OUT-CONTRACT UPHELD

Facts: Robinson was employed as a farm hand on the cattle farm of Ellis. While still alive, Ellis promised, by oral agreement, to give Robinson two hundred head of cattle. This was in consideration for work done on the farm.
After Ellis died, Robinson sought to claim the cattle from the estate, the executors of the will having refused to honour what Robinson claimed was a binding contract.
There was some evidence to support Robinson’s claim. The first was a witness, Earl. The second was a letter written by Ellis to Robinson, while Robinson was in gaol. The executors argued this letter was a forgery, and given Robinson’s prior convictions for offences of dishonesty, placed the authenticity of the letter in serious doubt.
The trial judge found there had been no forgery. The executors appealed against this decision. This was particularly in regard to the trial judge accepting evidence from a handwriting expert. The executors argued this evidence was inadmissible, as the witness was not suitably qualified.

Held per Meagher JA: Although the evidence left much speculation as to the authenticity of the letter, the trial judge accepted the letter as corroborating the agreement between Ellis and Robinson. The appellants failed in their attack on correctness of this decision.

Per Sheller JA, Powell JA agreeing: This court must accept the trial judge’s conclusions about the expert evidence in relation to the hand writing. The trial judge’s approach was proper and disclosed no error in reasoning.
After the trial judgment, Mr Robinson offered a settlement of $120,000. This was rejected by the appellants. The appellants were then ordered to pay Mr Robinson on a part and party basis until 15 May 1996, and then on an indemnity basis. There should be no alteration made as to costs.

ORDERS

1. Appeal dismissed with costs.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40529/98

MEAGHER JA
  SHELLER JA
  POWELL JA

28 APRIL 2000

CLIVE EGGINS & 2 ORS v ALLAN ROBINSON

JUDGMENT

  1. MEAGHER JA:  This is an appeal from Moore DCJ who gave a judgment in favour of the plaintiff…

Continue reading Eggins v Robinson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Eggins v Robinson [2000] NSWCA 61
Case
[2000] NSWCA 61
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Eggins v Robinson* concerned a dispute arising from an alleged oral agreement. The respondent, Mr. Robinson, claimed that Mr. Eggins had agreed to transfer certain cattle to him. Mr. Eggins denied this agreement, and the central issue became the alleged forgery of a letter intended to corroborate Mr. Robinson's claim. The appeal was heard in the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the court included the admissibility and weight of expert evidence concerning the authenticity of the corroborative letter, and whether the trial judge had erred in finding that the letter was not forged and that the oral agreement was established. The court also considered the trial judge's assessment of witness demeanour and the impact of the delay in delivering the reserved judgment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision. The court found that the expert evidence regarding the letter's authenticity was properly admitted and considered. While acknowledging the delay in judgment delivery, the court noted that the trial judge had made detailed notes and had the benefit of written submissions, and that no party had based their appeal solely on the delay. The trial judge's assessment of the respondent's demeanour as plausible and impressive, and his observations regarding the demeanour of the appellants' witnesses, were given considerable weight. The court concluded that the trial judge's findings of fact, including the non-forgery of the letter and the existence of the oral agreement, were open to him on the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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

The considerable efforts made in New South Wales to have cases disposed of quickly places a considerable work load on trial judges. Understandably, judges are anxious and encouraged to meet their list commitments. However, to do so at the expense of putting off for nearly two years the delivery of a reserved judgment is inefficient and defeats the purpose of achieving quick resolution of disputes. It seems to me that courts must allow judges time to write judgments where necessary so that the history of this case is not repeated. As it happens in this case, Judge Moore had made notes of demeanour and other preliminary matters as the hearing progressed and had the benefit of counsels’ written submissions and careful reflection on the evidence. Although the appellants suggested that the Judge’s recollection of the demeanour of the witnesses may have dimmed, neither side made any point based solely on the delay in giving judgment.REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Judge Moore gave judgment for the respondent in the amount of $199,847.72 and ordered the appellants to pay the respondent’s costs to be assessed on a party and party basis to 29 May 1996 and on an indemnity basis thereafter. During the trial, the respondent was comprehensively cross-examined and on some matters gave inconsistent accounts of what happened. Notably, Lisa Atkinson, with whom the respondent said he had been living, at one point in his evidence for about twelve months from September 1989, and at another point, on 31 January 1992 and for about two to three years, was not called to give evidence. Two of the appellants, Clive Eggins, who had been a friend of Mr Ellis for many years, and Phillip John Cooper, a son of Mr Ellis, gave evidence. The appellants also called Neville Arthur Uren, who in 1991 lived not far from Mr Ellis. While Judge Moore thought that Mr Uren had a most uneasy demeanour, he said of Mr Cooper’s evidence that it was given in a straightforward and relaxed fashion, without any prevarication. The Judge observed that in a case in which there was a likelihood of one or more witness being a liar, on one side of the record or the other, the respondent gave the impression of plausibility. He said that the respondent’s court room demeanour gave no cause for concern.“On the contrary, there were a number of features of the way he gave evidence which were quite impressive. He constantly answered questions promptly, without pausing for thought in a way which gave the impression that he was recalling fact. He tended to talk both volubly and speedily in a way incompatible with invention at many points although this was not the case with all of his evidence. At no point on any contentious issues was his demeanour palpably evasive or embarrassed.” The respondent called two witnesses to corroborate his evidence. The first was Eric John Earl who gave evidence that on an occasion towards the end of 1992, he visited Lavidia to speak to the respondent and was introduced to Mr Ellis. During the course of the conversation he remembered Mr Ellis saying something to the effect: “I’ve just given Allan 200 head of these cattle”. When asked if he could remember anything about the reason for Mr Ellis to give the cattle, he said that he used the word “deserved”. The trial Judge said that Mr Earl was of neutral demeanour in his evidence in chief and, under cross-examination, gave the impression that he was speaking as if recalling.“However as the cross-examination proceeded on peripheral matters concerning description of the cattle, he gave the impression of being distinctively uncomfortable. This could have been an unfortunate mannerism but it was in contrast to his earlier evidence of Mr Ellis’s statement. If this were the only source of corroboration of the plaintiff it would be some cause for careful scrutiny, but not necessarily destructive.”

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.