Greenhalgh v Baum - [1999] WASCA 142

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: GREENHALGH -v- BAUM [1999] WASCA 142

CORAM: PIDGEON J
WALLWORK J
OWEN J

HEARD: 9 MARCH 1999

DELIVERED : 20 AUGUST 1999

FILE NO/S: FUL 50 of 1998

BETWEEN: WAYNE HOWARD GREENHALGH
Appellant (Plaintiff)
AND
ERNEST ROLAND BAUM
Respondent (Defendant)

Catchwords:

Negligence - Damages - Two motor vehicle accidents - Dispute at trial as to nature of injury in first accident - Not satisfactorily resolved - Trial miscarried

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

Retrial ordered

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant (Plaintiff) : Mr E J Myers
Respondent (Defendant) : Mr J G Staude

Solicitors:

Appellant (Plaintiff) : Max Owens & Co
Respondent (Defendant) : John G Staude

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Beck v Markalinga Pty Ltd (No 2) (1996) SR (WA) 340
Brunskill v Sovereign Marine and General Insurance Co Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 842; 62 ALR 53
Campbell v R [1981] WAR 286
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Giorginis v Kastrati (1989) A Tort Rep 80-233
Government Insurance Office of New South Wales v Bailey (1992) 27 NSWLR 304
Johnson v American Home Assurance Company, unreported; SCt of WA (Master Adams); Library No 940599; 28 October 1994
Jones v Hyde (1989) 63 ALJR 349; 85 ALR 23
Kahn v Armaguard [1994] 3 All ER 548
Koutsouros v WA Security Products (1993) 9 SR (WA) 382
Liszka v Castledine, unreported; DCt of WA (Groves DCJ); Library No D990030; 10 February 1999
Lloyd v Centurion Roller Shutters Pty Ltd (1994) 10 SR (WA) 202
Love v Clarona Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970012; 24 January 1997
March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 99 ALR 423
Morton v State Government Insurance Commission, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 97300; 13 June 1997
O'Brien v O'Brien [1948] 65 WN (NSW) 131
Robinson v Patrick Stevedoring (WA) Pty Ltd (1994) 10 SR (WA) 236
SS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack [1927] AC 37
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (In Liq) [1999] HCA 3
Strowse v Hales Precision Metal Products Pty Ltd (1997) 19 SR (WA) 68
Taylor v Wundowie Foundry Pty Ltd (1997) 19 SR (WA) 289
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531

PIDGEON J: I agree with the reasons of Wallwork J. I would allow the appeal and order a new trial.
WALLWORK J: These are reasons for judgment after the hearing of an appeal from a judgment given in the District Court at Perth on 27 March 1998.
The appellant had claimed damages arising from injuries he received in a motor vehicle accident on 7 June 1990 when he was the driver of a motor vehicle which was stationary at an intersection in Bunbury. The vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle driven by the respondent. The…

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.

Continue reading Greenhalgh v Baum

Details

AGLC: Greenhalgh v Baum [1999] WASCA 142
Case: [1999] WASCA 142
Decision Date: 20 AUGUST 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Greenhalgh v Baum, the parties were Greenhalgh, the plaintiff, and Baum, the defendant. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for damages related to two separate motor vehicle accidents. The nature of the dispute was whether the plaintiff suffered an injury in the first accident and, if so, the extent of that injury. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The court had to determine several legal issues, primarily concerning the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the first accident. The plaintiff alleged that the first accident caused significant injuries, while the defendant denied any substantial injury occurred. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the trial was conducted fairly and whether it was possible to resolve the issues definitively based on the evidence presented.

The court found that the trial did not adequately resolve the dispute regarding the nature of the plaintiff's injury in the first accident. The evidence provided was insufficient to establish the extent of any injury, leading to a miscarriage of the trial. Consequently, the court determined that the proceedings should be dismissed due to the unresolved issues and the inability to fairly determine the plaintiff's damages. The court did not proceed to consider the damages related to the second accident, as the unresolved issues from the first accident necessitated the dismissal of the case.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the plaintiff's action due to the miscarriage of the trial. The unresolved issues regarding the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries in the first accident meant that the court could not make a definitive determination on the matter. As a result, the plaintiff's claim for damages was not proceeded with, and no orders were made in favour of either party.

Orders