GOLDSMITH -v- SANDILANDS & ORS [2000] WASCA 18
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 18 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:173/1998 | 19 & 20 AUGUST 1999 | |
| Coram: | PIDGEON J IPP J TEMPLEMAN J | 17/02/00 | |
| 48 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | TREVOR JOHN GOLDSMITH MICHAEL DARREN SANDILANDS THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE THE STATE GOVERNMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION |
Catchwords: | Tort Negligence Appeal from decision of a Commissioner in the District Court dismissing claim by police officer that he had been injured in a high speed chase Appellant claims that credibility findings are flawed, that Commissioner erred in refusing appellant leave to re-open his case and grant unconditional leave to continue and that he was biased against appellant Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Rules of the Supreme Court, O 23 The Motor Vehicle (Third Party) Insurance Act 1943 |
Case References: | Biogen Inc v Medeva PLC (1996) 36 IRP 438 Brown v Parker [1961] WAR 194 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1998) 98 ATC 4768 S & I Publishing Pty Ltd v Australian Surf Lifesaver Pty Ltd (1999) ATPR 41-667 SCI Operations Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1984) 53 ALR 283 State Rail Authority of NSW v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (1999) 160 ALR 588 Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 American International Group Incorporation v London American Insurance Corporation (1982) FSR 441 Covell Matthews & Partners v French Wool Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 876 Ex parte Stiles (1990) 2 WAR 270 Government Employees Superannuation Board v Martin (1997) 19 WAR 224 Pallot v Harrison, unreported; SCt of WA (Owen J); Library No 950261; 12 May 1995 Piddington v Bennett and Wood Pty Ltd (1940) 63 CLR 533 R v Watson; Ex Parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248 Re Gear deceased [1964] Qd R 528 Re Hope; Ex parte Carter (1985) 59 ALR 609 Re JRL; Ex Parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342 Singh v Crafter, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 8434; 12 April 1990 Stahlschmidt v Walford [1878-79] 4 QBD 217 Urban Transport Authority of New South Wales v Nweiser (1992) 28 NSWLR 471 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : GOLDSMITH -v- SANDILANDS & ORS [2000] WASCA 18 CORAM : PIDGEON J
- IPP J
TEMPLEMAN J
- Appellant
AND
MICHAEL DARREN SANDILANDS
First Respondent
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Third Respondent
THE STATE GOVERNMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Fourth Respondent
Catchwords:
Tort - Negligence - Appeal from decision of a Commissioner in the District Court dismissing claim by police officer that he had been injured in a high speed
(Page 2)
chase - Appellant…
Continue reading Goldsmith v Sandilands
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Goldsmith v Sandilands [2000] WASCA 18
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 18
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal by Goldsmith, a police officer, against the District Court's dismissal of his negligence claim was heard in the Supreme Court. Goldsmith contended that he was injured during a high-speed chase and sought to overturn the Commissioner's decision, which dismissed his claim. The appellant argued that the Commissioner's credibility findings were flawed, that he erred by refusing the appellant leave to re-open his case and grant unconditional leave to continue, and that he was biased against the appellant. The case hinged on its unique circumstances.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Commissioner's findings regarding credibility were correct and whether the Commissioner acted improperly in denying the appellant's requests to reopen the case and grant leave to continue. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was any bias on the part of the Commissioner against the appellant.
The court found that the Commissioner's assessment of credibility was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence presented. The court held that there was no error in the Commissioner's refusal to reopen the case or to grant unconditional leave to continue. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of bias on the part of the Commissioner. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
The Supreme Court's decision upheld the District Court's ruling and dismissed the appeal. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments, and therefore, the original dismissal of the negligence claim stood.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Commissioner's findings regarding credibility were correct and whether the Commissioner acted improperly in denying the appellant's requests to reopen the case and grant leave to continue. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was any bias on the part of the Commissioner against the appellant.
The court found that the Commissioner's assessment of credibility was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence presented. The court held that there was no error in the Commissioner's refusal to reopen the case or to grant unconditional leave to continue. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of bias on the part of the Commissioner. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
The Supreme Court's decision upheld the District Court's ruling and dismissed the appeal. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments, and therefore, the original dismissal of the negligence claim stood.
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.