Fox v Percy - [2002] HCATrans 341

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S88 of 2002

B e t w e e n -
BARBARA FOX
Appellant
and
MEGAN L. PERCY
Respondent

GLEESON CJ

McHUGH J
GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2002 AT 2.30 PM

MR P. MENZIES, QC: If Your Honours please, I appear with my learned friend, MR C.R. BURGE, for the appellant. (instructed by Beston Macken McManis)

MR J.D. HISLOP, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR P.J. NOLAN, for the respondent. (instructed by Sparke Helmore)

GLEESON CJ: Yes, Mr Menzies.

MR MENZIES: Your Honour, this appeal arises out of a decision in the District Court of New South Wales wherein the appellant as plaintiff was successful. It was a claim for damages for personal injury and the major issue at the trial was on which side of the road was the respondent defendant’s motor car at the time of a collision with the appellant plaintiff. As I said, the plaintiff was successful in the District Court and by majority failed in the Court of Appeal and it was in from the decision of the Court of Appeal which this appeal is brought. the error in the Court of Appeal’s decision we identify, your Honours ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J: Have you not got a motion? Do you not have a motion?

MR MENZIES: I am sorry, your Honour, yes, I do, I apologise. It is a formal matter.

GLEESON CJ: Is that opposed, Mr Hislop?

MR HISLOP: No, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ: Yes, you have that leave.

MR MENZIES: Thank you, your Honour. The error that we identify in the Court of Appeal’s decision can be found at page 366 of the appeal book in volume 2, the majority in that case consisting of Justices Beazley and Handley, with Justice Beazley providing the judgment with which Justice Handley agreed. At 366 at line 15, her Honour, having dealt with some expert evidence, continued and says this:

It follows that, in my opinion, the evidence of the respondent and Murdoch that the respondent was on the correct side of the road when the accident happened should not have been accepted by the trial judge. I have referred to the protection their evidence, would, in normal circumstances have under the Abalos principle.

which she refers to, and then at line 30 ‑ ‑ ‑

KIRBY J: You are surely not skipping those next words, “That protection is lost”.

MR MENZIES: I did not intend to skip them, your Honour, but I merely did not wish to ‑ ‑ ‑

KIRBY J: They are at the heart of the case.

MR MENZIES: Yes, your Honour, I accept that. Then I shall not. The appellant’s position obviously is that this was a decision based upon credit findings by the trial judge and in circumstances,…

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 Fox v Percy 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: [2002] HCATrans 341
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in a dispute between the appellant, Fox, and the respondent, Percy. The case concerned the appellant's claim for damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to adequately direct the jury on the issue of contributory negligence. Specifically, the court had to determine if the jury's finding of 50% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant was so unreasonable that it could not stand, or if the trial judge's directions on this matter were so deficient as to warrant a new trial.

The High Court, by majority, held that the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding contributory negligence were inadequate. The majority reasoned that the jury had not been properly guided on how to assess the appellant's conduct in light of the respondent's admitted negligence. The principles applied focused on the necessity for clear and comprehensive jury directions, particularly on complex issues like contributory negligence, to ensure a fair trial and a verdict based on proper legal understanding.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the verdict of the jury, and ordered a new trial on all issues.

Orders