Guest v The Nominal Defendant - [2006] NSWCA 77

No judgment structure available for this case.

New South Wales

Court of Appeal

CITATION: Guest v The Nominal Defendant [2006] NSWCA 77

HEARING DATE(S): 05/04/06

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 May 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Handley JA at 15; Ipp JA at 16

DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS: COURTS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM - appellant injured in unknown circumstances - appellant suffering from partial amnesia - unusual combination of injuries - appellant alleged that he had been struck by a motor vehicle - expert witnesses at trial propounded two alternative theories to explain the appellant's injuries - whether an appellate court can overturn a decision of a trial judge when it is based on the competing views of expert witnesses - whether a judge can decline to accept either theory - Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds ("The Popi M") [1985] 1 WLR 948 discussed - determination of probabilities - the task of an appellate court when the trial judge's decision in regard to a conflict between experts is based only to a minor degree on demeanour. - EVIDENCE - whether admission by conduct by a driver binding on the Nominal Defendant - whether failure to stop after accident is admission by driver. D

CASES CITED: Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2002) 194 ALR 485
Biogen Inc v Medeva Plc (1997) RPC 1
CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena (2006) 224 ALR 1
Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549
Effem Foods Ltd v Nicholls [2004] ATPR 42-034
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Holloway v McFeeters (1956) 94 CLR 470
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352
Nesterczuk v Mortimore (1965) 115 CLR 140
Nominal Defendant v Puglisi (1984) 58 ALJR 474
Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds ("The Popi M") [1985] 1 WLR 948
Suvaal v Cessnock City Council (2003) 77 ALJR 1449
The Ghannibanta (1876) 1 PD 283
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531

PARTIES: Benjamin Timothy Guest (Appellant)
The Nominal Defendant (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40201/05

COUNSEL: S Harben SC (Appellant)
P J Deakin QC/E Beilby (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Baker Love Lawyers (Appellant)
Sparke Helmore (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 437/03

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Sidis DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 04/03/2005

CA 40201/05
DC 437/03

MASON P
HANDLEY JA
IPP JA
Thursday 25 May 2006

BENJAMIN TIMOTHY GUEST v THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT

FACTS

On 30 December 2000, at about 4.30 am, the appellant, Benjamin Timothy Guest, was found lying on a sealed country road known as Old Bar Road between Taree and Old Bar. Mr Guest had suffered severe injuries the combination of which was extremely unusual. Apart from injuries to his torso, including a double fracture of the sternum and lengthy abrasions running down the front of his body, Mr Guest had been castrated. The puzzling thing about the castration injuries is that Mr Guest had sustained no significant injury to his penis, his thighs, or his pelvis.

Mr Guest was not able to explain how he received his injuries. According to his evidence, he was suffering from partial amnesia. The last thing Mr Guest remembered was walking on the grass and gravel of the left verge of Old Bar Road and passing the intersection between Old Bar Road and Metz Road (which was about 50 to 100 meters to the west of where he was found). He was intoxicated at the time. He was later found lying on his side in the middle of the northern lane of Old Bar Road. No witnesses were called who observed what had happened.

Mr Guest sued the Nominal Defendant. He alleged that he had been struck by an unidentified motor vehicle driving along Old Bar Road. The driver of the unidentified vehicle must then have left the scene and failed to report the accident.

At trial a number of expert witnesses were called to ascertain the likely cause of Mr Guest’s injuries. Mr Gibson, a consultant forensic engineer, propounded the theory that Mr Guest sustained his injuries when a motor vehicle collided with him. Dr Henderson, a consultant in traffic injuries, was of the view that the combination of injuries was more likely the result of an assault with a knife.

The trial judge, Sidis DCJ, dismissed Mr Guest’s action on the basis that she was not persuaded that Mr Guest’s injuries were caused by an unidentified motor vehicle. Further, her Honour held that, had she been satisfied that a motor vehicle had caused Mr Guest’s injuries, she would not have drawn the inference that the driver was negligent. The judge went on to assess Mr Guest’s damages. These came to a substantial sum.

The two fundamental points on appeal were whether Mr Guest’s injuries had been caused by a motor vehicle and, if so, was the driver of the motor vehicle negligent.

The cause of Mr Guest’s injuries

Held per Mason P (dissenting)

i. The speech of Lord Brandon in Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds (“The Popi M”) [1985] 1 WLR 948 is not relevant to the present case because in the Popi M other reasonable alternative scenarios existed to explain the cause of the ship sinking.

ii. In the present case, the near certainty of the two alternative scenarios, assault or motor vehicle accident, covering the field of possible causes of Mr Guest’s injuries means that, unlike in the Popi M situation, the effective choice is an “either/or” decision. Naturally, the appellant must establish his contention on the balance of probabilities.

iii. The possibility of a random attacker cannot be excluded, but the probability of such an attack having occurred seems to be highly improbable. The theory that Mr Guest’s injuries were caused by a motor vehicle is the more probable of the two alternatives.

Held per Ipp JA (Handley JA agreeing)

i. This case is essentially one of circumstantial evidence and the inferences to be drawn from that evidence. There are no incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony that demonstrates that the trial judge’s conclusions are erroneous (or, indeed, correct).

ii. In giving respect and weight to the conclusion of the trial judge regard must be had to the fact that the trial judge saw and heard the expert witnesses.

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118, Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2002) 194 ALR 485, Suvaal v Cessnock City Council (2003) 77 ALJR 1449

iii. A trial judge may be persuaded by a combination of the way in which experts give their evidence and the rational force of their opinions. Whatever part demeanour played in the judge’s decision it must have been of substantially lesser importance than the application of common sense and the logic of the expert’s opinions.

iv. This Court should approach the task before it on the basis that, while it may not be in precisely as good a position as the trial judge in considering the competing views of the experts, it is free to overturn the trial judge’s decision if it concludes that, giving full respect and weight to her conclusions, and taking into account the fact that demeanour to a minor degree may have influenced that conclusion, the trial judge was wrong.

v. The trier of fact, when confronted with divergent cases being advanced by the parties, may decline to accept either case.

Suvaal v Cessnock City Council (2003) 77 ALJR 1449, Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds (“The Popi M”) [1985] 1 WLR 948

vi. The weight to be given to the motor vehicle theory depends, to a significant degree, on the cogency or otherwise of the evidence of Mr Gibson. Mr Gibson, who was an engineer and not a medical practitioner, was the only expert who displayed any confidence in the notion that an impact with a vehicle could have caused damage to the scrotum. Many of the factors supporting the motor vehicle theory do not positively affirm the likelihood of that theory; rather they are arguments against the assault theory.

vii. On the balance of probabilities, the scrotal injuries could not have been caused by an impact from a vehicle without the surrounding areas suffering more trauma.

viii. On the balance of probabilities, the scrotal injuries could not have occurred through the cutting or crushing motion of a protuberance through the vertical cut it had brought about to the shorts and underpants.

ix. Based on the surrounding circumstances of Mr Guest’s injuries, the assault theory is unlikely. However, on the authorities, where the Court determines that the version advanced by a plaintiff is not a probable one, the Court does not have to choose the most likely of competing theories. Therefore, Sidis DCJ rightly held that Mr Guest did not discharge the onus upon him.

Negligence of the unidentified driver
Held per Ipp JA (Mason P and Handley JA agreeing)

i. An admission by conduct by a driver is admissible against the Nominal Defendant.

Nominal Defendant v Puglisi (1984) 58 ALJR 474

ii. In the case of Mr Guest, the driver’s failure to stop does not necessarily involve an admission of negligence. The road was a deserted country road and the incident occurred at around 4.00 am. It would have been a totally unexpected time and place for a driver to find an intoxicated pedestrian moving across the road. Not only would such an incident not be foreseeable, the driver might well have been fearful of the person who suddenly appeared in front of his or her vehicle.

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed with costs.

CA 40201/05
DC 437/03

MASON P
HANDLEY JA
IPP JA

Thursday 25 May 2006

BENJAMIN TIMOTHY GUEST v THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT

Judgment

1 MASON P: I agree with the orders proposed by Ipp JA and with his reasons concluding that, if the appellant was struck by an unidentified motor vehicle, negligence was not established.

2 I do not share his Honour’s conclusion on the motor vehicle accident issue. The case is perplexing and finely balanced, but the balance of probabilities supports the appellant’s contention that he was struck by a vehicle, in my opinion. Since there is a detailed summary of the evidence in Ipp JA’s reasons and since mine is a minority view I shall be brief.

3 Unlike Ipp JA, I do not regard the speech of Lord Brandon in Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds(“The Popi M”) [1985] 1 WLR 948 as relevant to the present case. The Popi M was an insurance claim concerning a ship that sank in deep waters in which the owners had to prove that the loss was by “perils of the seas”. The shell-plating beside the engine room suddenly opened up, allowing a jet of sea water to enter at such a rate that the vessel’s pumps could not cope with the inflow. The owners conceded that the aperture could not have been caused by collision with a submerged rock or with a floating object; but contended that the aperture was consistent with the vessel having collided with a submerged object, such as a submerged submarine. The insurers contended that the cause of the aperture was prolonged wear and tear of the vessel’s hull over many years.

4 At first instance, Bingham J held that the “submarine theory” was extremely improbable, but that the “wear and tear theory” was virtually impossible. In those circumstances, he held that the submarine theory should be accepted on the balance of probabilities. This decision was upheld in the English Court of Appeal, but reversed in the House of Lords. Lord Brandon emphasised (at 951) that the case turned on its facts, pointing out that the inability of divers to examine the sunken vessel meant that there was a genuine third possibility. This was that the evidence left the court in doubt as to the cause of the ship’s loss. There was no mention of scuttling, but it is clear that his Lordship had this or some other more than theoretical possibility in mind. The unexcluded possibility meant that the trial judge had been wrong to approach the case on an either/or basis. The Popi M is discussed by the Hon Mr Justice D H Hodgson in “The Scales of Justice: Probability and Proof in Legal Fact-Finding” (1995) 69 ALJ 731 at 749-50. The learned author suggests that there are passages in Lord Brandon’s speech that seem be saying that the onus was on the ship owner to establish that one particular peril of the sea was, on the balance of probabilities, the cause of the loss (see at 953-4). Mr Justice Hodgson suggests that this would be an incorrect legal proposition. I respectfully agree, although I doubt if this is the true ratio of the decision.

5 In the present case, no one even hints at a third possibility beyond a motor vehicle accident and a terrible assault. The near certainty that these two alternatives cover the field means that, unlike the Popi M situation, the effective choice is an “either/or” decision. Naturally, the appellant must establish his contention on the probabilities.

6 As Ipp JA points out, the appellant may well have moved before Mr Douglass came on the scene. This cautions against confining oneself to accident reconstruction theories proceeding from the position and direction of the appellant when first seen by Mr Douglass.

7 Ultimately, the two accident reconstruction experts did not exclude the possibility of the scrotal injuries having occurred in some manner involving a collision with a moving vehicle, although Dr Henderson did not accept that the combination of injuries was consistent with a motor accident and Mr Gibson did not accept that the chest injuries were consistent with an assault. Neither expert, nor for that matter the medical practitioners, had ever experienced a similar concatenation of injuries. Yet the injuries had undoubtedly happened in a violent encounter and fairly shortly before the appellant was discovered bleeding on the road.

8 The possibility of a random attacker cannot be excluded, but the probability of such an attack having occurred when and where it did seems to me to be very highly improbable. The alternative is much more probable in what was effectively a two-horse race.

9 The appellant’s pre-injury memory brought him as far as walking down Old Bar Road to between 50 and 100 metres east of the intersection of Old Bar Road and Metz Road, ie close to where he was found. He got there after cutting across country in the middle of the night, on an unusual route that was unexpectedly interrupted when his car became stuck on the short-cut track. Keys, coins, human tissue, blood and torn blue fragments of clothing apparently worn by him were found close to where he was lying, scattered on the road, but principally on its southern side. The trial proceeded on an assumption by both parties that the flesh found on the road came from the appellant’s scrotal area. The scrotal injuries were by no means clean cut and Dr Ghaly reported that the scrotum was heavily contaminated with “road dirt”.

10 Ipp JA gathers the factors supporting the inference that the appellant was injured by a vehicle at par [106] of his reasons. Some of those factors address the improbability of the alternative theory, to which I now turn.

11 To my mind, the assault theory verges on the fantastic, quite apart from its need to accommodate the “objective” facts of the appellant’s location when discovered by Mr Douglass and of the debris scattered over the roadway. There is no evidence suggesting that anyone would have had a motive to inflict the particular injuries, especially the rough castration. It is almost inconceivable that the putative assailant would have lain in wait for the appellant in the area and at the time in question. The route taken by the appellant as he made his drunken way home on the night in question was entirely unforeseeable. Why would an assailant attack the appellant on or near the road or, having attacked him elsewhere, have bothered to bring him to the road?

12 It is not I think suggested on either side that the scrotal injuries could have been deliberately inflicted through the smallish vertical aperture in the appellant’s pants and underpants. On this basis, the clothing must have been pulled down before an assailant could have inflicted the injuries. Why then did the assailant bother to put the clothing back into place. I am assuming that the appellant did not pull his clothing back on, although that possibility cannot entirely be excluded.

13 The appellant’s amnesia is strange on any account. But it becomes even more curious if it draws itself across the entirety of a confrontation with an assailant that involved a deliberate act of castration. There is little evidence of any serious head wound, itself a strange concomitant of the sort of assault that one might envisage. There was no suggestion that the appellant would have been moved by fear or some other emotion not to name his assailant(s) and it is difficult to infer why he would have been silent on the matter if he had any memory of an assault.

14 It was not put to the appellant in cross-examination that he had been violently assaulted. Indeed, the case appears to have proceeded on the basis of acceptance of the appellant’s testimony of remembering walking virtually to the point where he was found by Mr Douglass.

15 HANDLEY JA: I agree with Ipp JA.

16 IPP JA:

The principal questions in the appeal

17 At about 4.30 am on 30 December 2000, Benjamin Thomas Guest (then 20 years of age) was found lying on a sealed country road (Old Bar Road) between Taree and Old Bar with multiple injuries. His injuries were, in combination, extremely unusual. They need to be described and analysed in detail, but of major significance in this case is that, apart from sustaining several injuries to his torso, including a double fracture of the sternum (chest) and lengthy abrasions running down the front of his body, Mr Guest had been castrated.

18 The puzzling thing about the castration injuries is that Mr Guest had sustained no significant injury to his penis, his thighs, or his pelvis. Castration injuries of the kind that occurred - in the absence of other significant injuries in the immediate vicinity to the scrotum – had never before been seen by the experienced expert witnesses who testified. It is not easy to explain how they could have occurred in a motor vehicle accident, and this question was the focal point in the argument in the case, both on trial and on appeal.

19 Mr Guest was not able to explain how he received his injuries. According to his evidence, he was suffering from partial amnesia. He remembered walking on the grass and gravel of the left (northern) verge of Old Bar Road and passing the intersection between Old Bar Road and Metz Road (which was about 50 to 100 metres to the west of where he was found). From that moment he could not recall anything until he observed a policeman and an ambulance near him. He was then lying on his side in the middle of the northern lane of Old Bar Road. No witnesses were called who observed what had happened.

20 Mr Guest sued the Nominal Defendant. He alleged that he had been struck by an unidentified motor vehicle driving along Old Bar Road. If that occurred, the driver of the vehicle must have left the scene and failed to report the accident. Mr Guest contended that the vehicle collided with him as he was walking east and the vehicle was travelling west. He contended that the accident occurred on the driver’s incorrect side of the road, near the northern edge.

21 Sidis DCJ dismissed Mr Guest’s action. The judge was not persuaded that Mr Guest’s injuries “were the result of impact with an unidentified motor vehicle”. Further, her Honour held, implicitly, that, had she been satisfied that a motor vehicle had caused Mr Guest’s injuries, she would not have drawn the inference that the driver was negligent. The judge went on to assess Mr Guest’s damages. These came to a substantial sum.

22 Mr Guest appeals against the decision of Sidis DCJ on a number of grounds. These can be summarised as follows:

(a) Her Honour misunderstood and wrongly applied the evidence of certain expert witnesses (namely, Dr Henderson, a consultant in traffic injuries, who was called by the Nominal Defendant, and Mr Gibson, a consultant forensic engineer, who was called by Mr Guest).

23 Mr Gibson propounded the theory that Mr Guest sustained his injuries when a motor vehicle collided with him. Dr Henderson supported the view that the injuries, in combination, were not explicable by vehicle trauma and asserted that the injuries to the scrotum were more likely to have been caused by an assault with a knife.

24 The two fundamental questions in this case are, firstly, were Mr Guest’s injuries caused by a motor vehicle striking him and, secondly, if so, was the driver of the motor vehicle negligent (and was Mr Guest guilty of contributory negligence). In the absence of any eyewitness testimony, these questions must be resolved largely by a process of inference and deduction. This is not a situation with which courts are unfamiliar, but in this case the circumstances are strange and enigmatic.

The known events leading to the finding of Mr Guest lying on the road

25 At the time he sustained his injuries, Mr Guest was living in a caravan on his parents’ property in Bohnock, a country town near Taree. He was employed in work involving lawn and garden maintenance. On 29 December 2000, he finished work at about 3.30 pm or 4.00 pm. He went to Taree and bought some food and beer. He returned to his caravan and a friend joined him. They went to the friend’s home where Mr Guest remained for “a couple of hours”. During this time they were drinking beer. Mr Guest had been drinking since earlier that afternoon.

26 After leaving his friend, Mr Guest went to his car and slept for “an hour or more”. He woke up at between about 11.30 pm and 12.30 am and drove his car on to the Pacific Highway, travelling south, intending to return to Bohnock. Bohnock lay to the east and Taree to the west. Mr Guest turned off the Highway on to a track that led in a south-easterly direction to the Old Bar Road. Old Bar Road connects Taree with Old Bar and travels generally east/west. He intended to drive eastwards along Old Bar Road and, thereby, to Bohnock.

27 Shortly after leaving the Pacific Highway, Mr Guest’s car became stuck on the track and he could not get it to move. He got out of the car and walked in a south-easterly direction until he came to Old Bar Road which was about 2.65 kilometres away. He was found a further 2.59 kilometres to the east on Old Bar Road. Thus, he walked about 5½ kilometres from where his car was stuck.

28 Mr Guest said that, as he was walking along Old Bar Road, a number of cars went past him from behind, that is, going east. One car went past him in the opposite direction, going west. He attempted to flag down these vehicles to get a lift, but was unsuccessful.

29 Mr Guest continued eastwards, walking along the grass and gravel to the left of the bitumen of Old Bar Road. He passed the intersection between Old Bar Road and Metz Road. He walked another 50 to 100 metres to the east of that intersection.

30 The next thing Mr Guest recollects is a policeman walking away from him. There was an ambulance there at the time. According to Mr Guest, he then “got up off the road and walked over [to] the back of the ambulance”. He did not realise he had been injured until he was in the back of the ambulance. It was only then that he began to feel pain.

31 At about 4.30 am on 30 December 2000, a pensioner, Mr Kevin John Douglass, was taking his daughter to work. He was driving along Old Bar Road in an easterly direction. He saw Mr Guest lying on the road in the middle of the left (northern) lane in which he was travelling. Mr Douglass changed lanes and went around Mr Guest, who was lying lengthways with his head to the west and his back to the middle of the road (that is, to the south).

32 Mr Douglass did not stop but drove on to Old Bar, about eight or nine kilometres away. At Old Bar he telephoned Emergency Services and returned to where Mr Guest was lying on the road. Mr Douglass found that Mr Guest had moved and was off the road on the left-hand (northern) side. The police arrived at the same time as Mr Douglass. Mr Douglass said that Mr Guest went to sit on the tailgate of the police vehicle.

33 Old Bar Road, where the injury occurred, was in a rural setting in a sparsely populated area. The nearest home was about 200 to 300 metres away from where Mr Guest was found. There were high trees on the left as he walked, that is, to the north. To the south the land was open with a fairly wide grass verge. There was nothing to obscure vision. The road was virtually straight. The precise width of the road is not known, but it seems to be a standard bitumen country road. It was not particularly narrow. The speed limit was 90 kilometres an hour.

34 If Mr Guest started walking at about 1.00 am and he was not interfered with save for being struck by a vehicle, it would seem that he had been lying on the roadway for about one to two hours before Mr Douglass observed him.

35 Mr Douglass called the ambulance at 4.38 am. It arrived on the scene at 5.02 am. As I have mentioned, the police arrived at about the same time.

36 When Mr Guest was found, he was bleeding from the scrotal area. He was wearing shorts and loose fitting underpants at the time. The ambulance officers cut Mr Guest’s shorts and underpants in the crotch in order to remove them.

37 In addition to the cut made by the ambulance officers, there was a single vertical cut or tear in the shorts as well as in the underpants. These cuts were on the left-hand side of the upper part of the front of the shorts and underpants, towards the waist. The cut in the shorts appeared to be aligned with the cut in the underpants.

38 Keys, coins, human tissue, blood and torn blue fragments of clothing apparently worn by Mr Guest at the time were found close to where he was lying, scattered on the road, but principally on the southern side. Mr Harben informed the Court that the trial had proceeded on the basis of an assumption by both parties that the flesh found on the road came from Mr Guest’s scrotal area.

39 Two photographs (photos 2 and 7, Blue Book 266 and 279) show small pieces of blue fragments of clothing lying on and next to pieces of flesh. The material and flesh depicted on photo 7 are depicted in another photo (Blue Book 273) as lying on the northern half of the road. It is not possible to discern where the materials and flesh depicted on photo 2 were lying. Other photos show several other pieces of flesh and some fragments of clothing lying separately on the road.

40 It is not known whether all the cuts in the crotch of the shorts and underpants were made by the ambulance officers.

41 According to Mr Guest, some ten dollars in notes was missing from his wallet. From a photo of his wallet, apparently showing what was in it when found, it seems that his driver’s licence and a debit card were also missing. The evidence as to what was in his wallet, however, was vague.

42 Mr Guest’s father, after the incident, informed the police that he believed that Mr Guest had been castrated by the deliberate act of an individual. He was sufficiently concerned about his son’s welfare to insist that the police mount a guard at the hospital to make sure that he was not attacked again. The police, however, did not find anything in their investigations that supported the father’s fears. The evidence does not establish that Mr Guest had any enemies.

43 Dr Dauncey, a pharmacologist, provided a report based on a blood sample taken from Mr Guest at 6.00 am at the hospital where he was treated. According to that sample, his blood alcohol content was 0.112g per cent. Dr Dauncey expressed the opinion that at the time he was injured Mr Guest’s blood alcohol content was likely to have been about 0.169g per cent. She considered, on that basis, that Mr Guest was “heavily intoxicated at the time” and alcohol “would have significantly compromised his ability to take reasonable care of himself”. Dr Dauncey stated:

“[H]is cognitive ability would have been seriously diminished, causing confused thinking and a distorted perception of reality.

His physical symptoms are likely to have included serious impairment of his balance and co-ordination causing difficulty with walking and not stumbling or over balancing. His movements would have been clumsy …”.

44 She concluded:

“It is therefore my opinion that Benjamin Guest’s ability to use the road safely, observe his surroundings with vigilance and make appropriate decisions based on his observations are most likely to have been seriously impaired by the alcohol he had consumed that evening.”

The injuries to the scrotum and the surrounding areas

45 As I have remarked, the injuries to Mr Guest’s scrotum are at the forefront of importance in this case. Dr Ghaly, the treating surgeon, described those injuries as follows:

“The findings were a mutilated right testis. All the tissues that were left were tunica albuginea … The cord of the left testis was found but there was no testis to be found on the left side. This man had been castrated from his injuries. The scrotal injury was ragged and irregular. There was no significant injury to the penis, there was only minor bruise [sic] there.”

46 Another description of the scrotum injury by Dr Ghaly is equally graphic:

“There were obvious lacerations to his scrotum whereby the right testis was squashed and crushed and there was only the tunica albuginea found. An extensive, grossly contaminated wound to the scrotum on both sides. The left testis was not seen.”

47 Mosby’s Medical, Nursing & Allied Health Dictionary, 6th Ed, defines tunica albuginea as “a tissue covering of white collagenous fibres, such as the sclerotic coat of the eye ball and the testes”. Blakiston’s Gould Medical Dictionary, 4th Ed, defines tunica albuginea as “a general term for a dense connective-tissue covering layer”. The work defines tunica albuginea testis as “the dense fibrous capsule of the testis …”

48 Dr Henderson described the injury to the scrotum as “the almost complete total loss of both testes”. As I understand the position, one testicle was severed and has never been found. The other was completely crushed so that only tissue was discernible.

49 Dr Ghaly was asked whether the scrotum had been torn or cut and he replied that he was “inclined to say it’s more cut”. He said that there was bruising of the edge of the skin and a strong force had to cause that damage. He was asked what sort of action might have caused the jagged and irregular appearance of the scrotal skin and he said:

“I cannot really answer that at all. I can’t imagine”.

50 Mr Guest’s scrotum was heavily contaminated with “road dirt”. There was no evidence of remnants of clothing being in the wound.

51 The skin of the penis was intact but it was bruised. Dr Ghaly said that bruising to the penis could be caused by direct impact but also by the migration of fluid from other internal injuries higher up in the body. He agreed that because the skin of the penis was intact “there was no direct evidence of any injury”.

52 Mr Guest’s pelvis was intact and was not damaged. There was no injury to any part of his thighs.

53 In an area immediately adjacent to where the scrotum would have been, in the right groin area, there was an abrasion where the top layer of skin was shaved off. Mr Guest sustained a laceration in the area of the right hip. Dr Ghaly did not believe that a knife caused this laceration (but Dr Henderson did).

Mr Guest’s amnesia

54 Dr Ghaly and Dr Henderson said that amnesia after a motor vehicle accident is common, because of an impact to the head. Dr Ghaly in his report stated:

55 Mr Guest’s Glasgow Coma Scale score was initially recorded at the scene as being 13 out of 15. This indicated a near normal state of consciousness and alertness. At hospital, his score was recorded as 15 out of 15 and was described as “alert and oriented”. An earlier episode of diminished consciousness had, however, been noted in the hospital records. Whether this was caused by alcohol or some other factor and whether it referred to the score of 13 is not known.

56 According to Dr Henderson, there was nothing to suggest that Mr Guest was hit over the head and knocked unconscious. There were, however, small marks on Mr Guest’s head, one being near his eye and one being on the back of his head. But whether these injuries were evidence of a blow sufficient to cause amnesia was not established.

57 Mr Gibson said that a police report contained a reference to a split lip and swelling around the eyes. No other witness mentioned these injuries.

58 Mr Gibson drew the inference that there was minor injury to the brain, as demonstrated by the loss of memory. But, as I have mentioned, it is by no means clear that Mr Guest received a blow to the head of sufficient force to have caused amnesia.

59 Mr Harben SC, who appeared for Mr Guest submitted that Dr Ghaly had testified that massive injuries caused by a motor vehicle could lead to amnesia for the event, even without a demonstrable head injury. On my reading of the evidence, however, Dr Ghaly did not give that testimony.

60 The judge made no finding as to whether Mr Guest had amnesia. She observed that, while Mr Gibson relied on “traumatic amnesia”, there was no evidence of loss of consciousness. It was not put to Mr Guest, directly, that he did not have amnesia.

61 In the circumstances, I proceed on the assumption that Mr Guest did have amnesia as he stated, but - in view of the uncertainty as to what caused the amnesia - I shall regard it as a neutral fact, that is, it supports neither theory more than the other.

The abrasions in the front of Mr Guest’s body and the other injuries

62 Mr Guest had abrasions from the upper part of the chest to the lower part of the abdomen. Dr Ghaly said that this was “a sign of being dragged on the road”. In cross-examination Dr Ghaly agreed that the abrasions were longitudinal scrape injuries parallel with the centre line of the body. He agreed that they suggested a pulling along a rough surface from the head or from the feet (Black 160).

63 Dr Henderson described the abrasions as extending downwards, from the region of the upper sternum, centrally. He said:

“There is a comparatively deep but quite localised abrasion, oval in shape, over the upper sternum, with lighter collecting lines of abrasion trending downwards and terminating in another patch of relatively deep abrasion just above and to the right of his navel.”

“The positioning of this pattern appears to be consistent with the fractured sternum and mediastinal haematoma reported in the CT examination, and with the fractured ribs, especially on the right side.”

“Over the left chest, and on the side of the right chest, are further rather lighter abrasions, again extending in lines up and down his body. There is a patch of abrasion and bruising lying horizontally below and to the right of his navel, the position of which is consistent with the underlying liver laceration found at operation”.

64 In addition, Mr Guest sustained a double fracture of the sternum and fractures of the right and left ribs. He sustained lung contusion, haemothorax, rupture of the liver, rupture of the spleen and damage to the gall bladder. He sustained a laceration to his hand and lacerations to his elbows. He suffered a compound fracture of the right elbow. He sustained a tear of the medial collateral ligament in the left knee with a complete rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. He sustained a relatively minor injury to his right knee that caused pain. The injuries to the knees were internal; there was no sign of a direct blow to the knees. He sustained soft tissue injury to the lumbar spine.

The experts other than Mr Gibson and Dr Henderson

65 Several experts testified. In the end, however, the main champions of the two opposing theories were Mr Gibson for Mr Guest and Dr Henderson for the Nominal Defendant. Their competing views must, however, be seen in the context of the opinions expressed by the other experts.

66 Dr Ghaly said that the abrasions on the chest, trunk and abdomen could not have occurred at the same time as the testicular injury. He was of the opinion that the fractures of the sternum, the haemothorax, the contusions of the lungs, the rupture of the liver, the multiple lacerations, and the fractures of the medial elbow, were consistent with Mr Guest having been struck by a motor vehicle. He said that a “strong force” would be needed to cause these injuries. He said that the mutilated right testis and the missing left testis were “not as easy to explain in the absence of significant injury to the penis”. He said that the injuries to the scrotum could not have been caused by “blunt trauma”.

67 Dr Ghaly accepted, however, that the injuries to the torso (including the internal injuries) could also have been caused by a severe beating to the chest by a baseball bat or a hammer or a similar weapon. He said that they could also have been caused by a fall from a height of three metres or more.

68 Dr Ghaly said that when he examined Mr Guest he formed the opinion that Mr Guest had been a pedestrian who had been hit by a vehicle or he had been assaulted and dragged on the road.

69 All the experts accepted that the castration injury has to be seen in the context of the condition of Mr Guest’s hips, pelvis, thighs, lower stomach and penis. Dr Ghaly, Dr Rapaport and Dr Henderson (who had had considerable experience over many years) had never seen scrotal injuries such as those sustained by Mr Guest with no injury to the surrounding areas such as the penis, the thighs, and the femoral and hip regions.

70 Dr Berghouse, a consultant physician, described the absence of penile injury with the severe scrotal injury as surprising. Dr Rapaport, a consultant surgeon, said:

“The focally blunt and specific nature of damage to both testicles without injury to the thigh, femoral, hip or iliac regions is puzzling and cannot readily be explained in the context of motor vehicle trauma. The testicles are in a relatively protected position between the thighs and it is difficult to envisage a selective injury to the testes without concomitant injury to the thigh, femurs, groin region or pelvis. A large moving vehicle striking the groin region of a pedestrian might be expected to cause injuries of a more diffuse nature and concomitant lower limb, long bone and pelvic fractures might be expected to be seen.”

71 Dr Tarrant, an orthopaedic surgeon, said:

“As a surgeon involed [sic] in the Trauma Roster at John Hunter Hospital we certainly see a lot of young men involved in trauma. I am surprised that if the mechanism of being hit from behind by a car was in fact truly the mechanism then one is surprised that he doesn’t have a fractured pelvis or femoral fractures or other bony injury in keeping with this.” [Blue 166]

72 Dr Berghouse, Dr Rapaport and Dr Tarrant were not cross-examined.

Mr Gibson

73 In Mr Gibson’s first report of 7 July 2004 he said that in his opinion “the following events were most likely to have occurred”:

(a) Mr Guest was walking in an eastern direction and “it is possible he moved from the kerb to hail a vehicle travelling in the west bound lane”.

(b) Mr Guest was struck by a motor vehicle as he was facing it. “The vehicle did not brake, but continued at constant speed”.

(c) The vehicle was most likely a large four-wheel drive or small truck fitted with a bull bar. The impact of the bull bar caused the chest injury.

(d) Mr Guest had his weight on his left leg. The impact from the bumper bar forced the knee to hyper-extend, causing the internal knee injuries.

(e) According to Mr Gibson, a possible source of the frontal abrasions might have been “the circular section top bar on a large front wheel drive vehicle or small truck …”.

(f) “The impact with the front of the vehicle on the driver’s side caused Mr Guest to somersault over the driver’s side of the vehicle. A pedestrian impact results in such a somersault when the pedestrian is struck near the edge of the vehicle and the vehicle is not slowing down rapidly. This trajectory gives a strong possibility of Mr Guest getting caught on the rear structure of the vehicle. If this consisted of a rear tray, then this is the most likely source of both the scrotal injuries and the contamination of the injuries. Several small pieces of blue fabric were torn from his boxer [shorts] possibly due to snagging on the vehicle structure.”

74 I would pause to note that in this report Mr Gibson appears to assume that Mr Guest may have been struck in the southern, west bound, lane and not near the edge of the northern lane as Mr Harben submitted. I would also observe that there was no bruising or external damage to the knees that supported a theory of impact to them.

75 In a later, supplementary report (after Dr Henderson had provided his report) Mr Gibson said that the injuries to the chest “may result from the top bar of a bull bar”. He said that, after the impact with the chest, the “motion of the vehicle would also slide the pedestrian up onto the vehicle bonnet”. He repeated this, saying, “The trajectory of the pedestrian post impact would be up onto the bonnet and then over the driver side mudguard. The body of the pedestrian would then rotate legs over head down the side of the vehicle, partially driven by the impact to the left knee by the bumper bar”. Later in the supplementary report he said that Mr Guest had a “fender vault trajectory, where the pedestrian rolls off the vehicle side ways [sic] post impact”.

76 As I understand these two reports, and as Sidis DCJ observed, they reflect a shift of opinion by Mr Gibson. In the first report Mr Gibson expressed the opinion that Mr Guest, after impact with a bull bar, was thrown in a violent somersault over the driver’s side of the vehicle and was caught on the rear structure of the vehicle. In the second report he said that, after the bull bar struck his chest, Mr Guest slid on to the bonnet and then over the driver side mudguard from where his body rotated, legs over head, down the side of the vehicle. This he said was a “frontal projection”. On a common sense basis, the latter description is an unlikely scenario; it involves the body moving from the bull bar, over the mudguard, to the bonnet, then over the mudguard again, and then down the side of the vehicle. It is not apparent to me how this could occur.

77 Mr Gibson gave oral evidence. The following evidence given by him is of particular relevance:

(a) The motion of a pedestrian in an impact is very complicated and can be chaotic.

(b) Mr Gibson thought that Mr Guest would have been thrown over the top of the vehicle in a cartwheel (in the opposite direction to that of the vehicle) while Dr Henderson thought that Mr Guest would have been knocked forwards in the direction in which the vehicle was moving.

(c) Mr Gibson agreed that his theory depended on Mr Guest having been struck by a bull bar of a large four-wheel drive vehicle or a truck and a large part of the force being taken by his upper body.

(d) Mr Gibson stated that, if a vehicle brakes after hitting a pedestrian, the pedestrian is likely to be projected forwards in the same direction as the vehicle is travelling; in some circumstances, however, if the vehicle continues at a constant speed, the pedestrian “will go right over the vehicle”.

(e) If Mr Guest sustained his injuries (as depicted in photographs seen by Mr Gibson) in a collision with a vehicle, the point of impact with him would have been well above his centre of gravity (he was over six feet tall).

(f) The likelihood was that a man the size of Mr Guest, over six foot tall, who is hit in the chest by a vehicle travelling towards him would be knocked forward in the direction the vehicle is travelling and would eventually come to rest on the road in front of the vehicle. Mr Gibson said that the “average accident will have these end results” but observed that other possibilities were the “wrap” (where the pedestrian “falls over the front of the vehicle and is sort of captured on the front of the vehicle”) and a “frontal projection”, which Mr Gibson favoured.

(g) Mr Gibson accepted that – on his “vehicle” scenario – there was only one theory that could explain how Mr Guest would have suffered his testicular injury. That theory was that Mr Guest rotated, almost cartwheel-like, down the side of the vehicle and came into contact with some sharp protruding object on the side of the vehicle. In other words, the impact caused Mr Guest to be lifted off the ground and to be propelled on to various points of the vehicle and then on to the roadway. This, Mr Gibson said, could have caused the injuries to the sternum and the scrotum. Mr Gibson said that he could not advance any other theory. He had never seen injuries like those sustained.

(h) Mr Gibson said, when a proposition was put to him as to how the abrasions were caused, “Well again we end up with possibilities I think rather than – I can’t say with, you know, with certainty, that anything happened really in this particular case”. In re-examination, when it was put to Mr Gibson that the impact had thrown Mr Guest “up over the fender”, he replied, “well we’re not really even certain of that because of our lack of knowledge of the positioning”.

78 On Mr Gibson’s theory, whatever penetrated the scrotum first penetrated both layers of the loose fitting pants and struck the scrotum as Mr Guest was moving. This caused the tearing to the scrotum, excised one testicle and crushed the other, leaving only tissue. The excised testicle fell downwards through the loose fitting shorts.

79 Mr Gibson accepted that the injuries could have occurred independently of a motor vehicle but argued:

80 Later, in his supplementary report, Mr Gibson stated:

“The exact cause of the scrotal injuries is unknown but it is possible that they were the result of impact with the vehicle.”

Dr Henderson

81 Dr Henderson was of the opinion that the accident could not have resulted from a “squarely frontal strike”. He agreed that each of the individual injuries could have been sustained in a vehicle accident but he was of the view that the pattern of the injuries was such that they could not have all been sustained in a vehicle accident.

82 Dr Henderson expressed the opinion that it was extremely unlikely for the scrotal injury to have occurred as a result of contact with any part of the vehicle, “whether he was being thrown over it or around the side of it, or underneath it”. He said that an assault was “more likely to have been by knife than any other mechanism”.

83 According to Dr Henderson, the cut in the shorts matched the cut in Mr Guest’s underpants and what was later found to be the abrasion or shaving of the skin in the groin area. He said that the lack of surrounding bruising “is typical of a knife wound”.

84 Dr Henderson said that, were the injuries to have been caused by an impact with a vehicle, the impact would have had to have been “massive” (Mr Gibson was of the same opinion). According to Dr Henderson, in those circumstances the absence of a head injury was “astonishing”.

85 Dr Henderson in his report of 16 July 2004, expressed the opinion that:

“… [i]t is essentially inconceivable that Mr Guest could have received such devastating injuries to his scrotum through an impact which completely spared his penis and all other surrounding regions of his body. The impact would have had to excise not only most of his scrotum and its contents but also – quite neatly, from the photographs reviewed – parts of his clothing in the groin region.”

86 Dr Henderson disputed that Mr Guest would have been thrown in the air in consequence of the impact. He disputed Mr Gibson’s theory involving Mr Guest being thrown over or alongside the vehicle in a direction opposite to that in which it was moving. He said that an impact from a motor vehicle above a person’s centre of gravity would probably force the person downwards and not up into the air.

87 He accepted that Mr Guest’s knee injury could have occurred as a result of a vehicle impact but said that it could equally have occurred in consequence of an assault.

The trial judge’s judgment

88 Sidis DCJ observed that neither of the opinions expressed by Mr Gibson and Dr Henderson “is without its problems”.

89 Her Honour observed that Dr Henderson’s testimony was affected by a number of matters. The most cogent of these were.

(a) Initially, he based his assault theory partly on an assumption that certain injuries were stab wounds but later agreed that these wounds could have been the result of impact with a protruding part of a vehicle.

(b) He accepted that the chest and internal injuries could have been the result of an impact with a vehicle.

(c) Dr Henderson initially stated that Mr Guest had suffered no injuries to his back but later acknowledged that there were marks on his back (although he stated that they were light and inconsistent with Mr Guest having fallen onto the road following impact with a vehicle).

(d) Dr Henderson’s assertion that Mr Guest could not have somersaulted over a vehicle was refuted by an American report known as “the Rivani report”, which indicated that pedestrians would be projected in the opposite direction when struck by a decelerating vehicle in the front.

(e) The contents of Mr Guest’s pockets together with pieces of tissue and fragments of clothing were spread over the surface of Old Bar Road. Her Honour observed that this indicated that “he had impacted upon the road surface with some force and had rotated”. Presumably her Honour thought that this was more consistent with Mr Gibson’s theory than that of Dr Henderson.

90 Dr Henderson later accepted that the assumptions identified by the judge were incorrect but maintained the correctness of his theory. His theory did not depend on those assumptions, although they tended to reinforce it. Dr Henderson recognised that certain features of the case were consistent with vehicle trauma, but he maintained that a vehicle impact could not have caused all the injuries Mr Guest sustained. In my view, none of these matters reflects substantially on the rational force of the ultimate opinion expressed by Dr Henderson, although they could have influenced her Honour’s sub-conscious view of Dr Henderson’s reliability.

91 Sidis DCJ also noted that the problems in regard to Mr Gibson’s testimony were:

(a) There was no satisfactory explanation for the absence of significant head or back injury. She also pointed to the absence of serious damage to the pelvic region.

(b) Although Mr Gibson relied on an indication in the Rivani report that somersault trajectories occurred in circumstances of high impact speeds and no braking, the Rivani report stated that in all such cases there were resulting leg and head injuries.

“A pedestrian wraps over a vehicle when his upper torso/head bends over the vehicle, coming into contact and sliding along the vehicle hood (or bonnet). This pedestrian achieves the vehicle speed, separates from the decelerating vehicle, becomes airborne, falls to the roadway and scuffs (or tumbles) to his final rest position … In the cases classified as a pedestrian wrap, injuries from direct vehicle contact and those from the roadway were generally on the same side of the pedestrian’s body”.

“The problem with this shift in opinion is that Mr Gibson had related [Mr Guest’s] chest and internal injuries to a direct impact with the bull bar of a vehicle …

The somersault trajectory was also the basis for Mr Gibson’s opinion that the elongated abrasions to [Mr Guest’s] chest were the result of an upward movement as the impact with the vehicle progressed.”

(d) Dr Ghaly testified that Mr Guest’s scrotal injuries were contaminated by road dirt and not “as might be expected with traumatic impacts” by remnants of Mr Guest’s clothing.

(e) Dr Ghaly contradicted Mr Gibson’s opinion that Mr Guest’s chest injuries could not have been suffered in an assault.

(f) Mr Gibson agreed that Mr Guest had been dragged along a road or other rough surface and agreed that this and Mr Guest’s scrotal injuries could have occurred independently of impact with a motor vehicle.

(g) Mr Gibson appears to have assumed that Mr Guest suffered head injuries and considered that the traumatic amnesia, loss of consciousness and a reference in the police report to a split lip and swelling around Mr Guest’s eyes supported this. Sidis DCJ noted, however, that there was no evidence of loss of consciousness. Further, the evidence of the split lip and swelling around Mr Guest’s eyes were recorded as having been reported to the police by Mr Guest’s father but were not noticed, according to the evidence, by any other person.

92 Many of the matters to which Sidis DCJ so drew attention detracted from the logical and rational force of Mr Gibson’s theory. I doubt whether her Honour was correct, however, in saying that Mr Gibson shifted to an opinion that the impact was of the “wrap” type. He merely described this possibility. I do think, however, that Mr Gibson did change his mind about two important matters. Firstly, he seemed to water down the notion of a somersault over the vehicle on to its rear to a notion of Mr Guest being projected over the mudguard and bonnet on the driver’s side followed by a cartwheeling motion along the side. Secondly, he seemed to water down his views from the confidence apparent in his first report to diffidence in describing “possibilities” only and recognising the serious difficulties in explaining what occurred in any reliable way.

93 Sidis DCJ pointed out that the opinions of the two experts “were centred upon two features of the incident”. Dr Henderson’s opinion was based fundamentally upon his inability to accept that Mr Guest “could have suffered his scrotal injuries in the absence of other damage to the pelvic region of his body and his legs and upon the absence of evidence of significant trauma to [Mr Guest’s] head and back”. Mr Gibson’s opinion was based on the fact that Mr Guest was found upon a public road at a point on the road where his possessions were scattered “indicating that he had impacted with and rolled upon the road surface”.

94 Her Honour said that each expert agreed that it was possible that Mr Guest’s injuries occurred in the manner proposed by the other. That is not correct. Mr Gibson did not agree that Mr Guest’s chest injuries might have been caused by an assault. He said that the overall result fitted in to the “profile of a pedestrian impact”. Dr Henderson, while accepting that the individual injuries could have been caused by impact with a vehicle, maintained that the overall pattern of the injuries was such that a vehicle impact could not have caused all of them. He expressed the firm opinion that a vehicle could not have caused the injury to the scrotum “without causing injuries to the associated parts of his body”.

95 Mr Guest conducted his case on an all or nothing basis and did not contend that his injuries might have been sustained in two different incidents.

96 Her Honour said that she took particular note of a number of matters, including:

(a) A body of medical opinion challenged the probability that the scrotal injuries were the result of trauma as postulated by Mr Gibson.

(b) There was no evidence of contamination of the scrotum by particles of Mr Guest’s clothing.

(c) There were no injuries to Mr Guest’s pelvis, head or legs consistent with a motor vehicle collision of force sufficient to have caused his chest and internal injuries and which resulted in him somersaulting over or, cartwheeling alongside, or being wrapped around the vehicle before being thrown onto the surface of the road.

97 Her Honour held that Mr Guest had not discharged the onus on him of proving that his injuries were caused by an unidentified motor vehicle.

98 Her Honour then dealt with negligence on the assumption that a motor vehicle had, in fact, caused Mr Guest’s injuries. She referred to Holloway v McFeeters (1956) 94 CLR 470 and Nominal Defendant v Puglisi (1984) 58 ALJR 474. Her Honour distinguished the circumstances in those cases from the circumstances in the present case. Her Honour determined, implicitly, that even on the assumption that a vehicle had been involved Mr Guest had not proved that the driver of that vehicle had negligently caused his injuries.

The task of this Court

99 Sidis DCJ made no express credibility findings. There was no real challenge to Mr Guest’s evidence. Dr Ghaly’s evidence appears to have been accepted, generally. As I have mentioned, the other medical practitioners to whom I have referred (apart from Dr Henderson) were not cross-examined. Her Honour referred to certain criticisms she had of the evidence of Dr Henderson and Mr Gibson. Her Honour was not persuaded, on a balance of probabilities, by Mr Gibson. She did not say whether she was at all influenced by demeanour in making this finding.

100 Dr Henderson and Mr Gibson came to their respective conclusions by relying on an amalgam of their own opinions and inferences based on common sense. The case is essentially one of circumstantial evidence and the inferences to be drawn from that evidence. There are no incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony that demonstrates that the judge’s conclusions are erroneous (or, indeed, correct).

101 In Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Kirby JJ said at 126 to 127; [25]:

Dearman v Dearman

The Glannibanta

Warren v Coombes

‘[I]n general an appellate court is in as good a position as the trial judge to decide on the proper inference to be drawn from facts which are undisputed or which, having been disputed, are established by the findings of the trial judge. In deciding what is the proper inference to be drawn, the appellate court will give respect and weight to the conclusion of the trial judge but, once having reached its own conclusion, will not shrink from giving effect to it.’”

102 In giving “respect and weight to the conclusion of the trial judge,” regard must, I think, be had to the fact that her Honour saw and heard the expert witnesses. The reason for this was expressed by Kirby J in Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2002) 194 ALR 485 at 510; [97] where his Honour observed that it will not always possible for judges, when arriving at a factual conclusion:

Biogen Inc v Medeva Plc

Suvaal v Cessnock City

Council

“… [t]he way appeals are usually conducted sometimes impedes an appreciation ‘of the “feeling” of a case which an appellate court, reading the transcript, cannot always fully share’”.

103 I am very much conscious of the fact that in CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena (2006) 224 ALR 1 Kirby J, with whom Gleeson CJ agreed, said that Fox v Percy constituted a “shift in instruction” [20]. His Honour said at 8 to 9; [22] to [23]:

“However, where the conclusion of the primary judge depends on inferences drawn from undisputed facts or facts that have been found but can equally be redetermined by the appellate court, without relevant disadvantage, the duty of the appellate court is clear. It derives from the parliamentary enactment. It ‘will give respect and weight to the conclusion of the trial judge, but, once having reached its own conclusion, will not shrink from giving effect to it’.

Fox v

Percy

“The present was not a case where the primary judge expressly or impliedly based his rejection of the respondent’s case on the conduct or demeanour of witnesses in court. In order to view the conclusions at trial in this light, it would be necessary to revive the notion of an unexpressed and unstated ‘subtle influence of demeanour.’

Such a revival would … be inconsistent with the new emphasis contained in this Court’s reasons in Fox v Percy.”

104 On the other hand, in CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena Callinan and Heydon JJ came to a different conclusion on the facts. Their Honours said at [180]:

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission

105 The present case differs from CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena because the conflict is between experts. It is, nevertheless, a truism that a judge may be persuaded by a combination of the way in which experts give their evidence and the rational force of their opinions.

106 On the facts of this case, the application of common sense is essential (and crucial) to the determination of the ultimate issue. Therefore, it seems to me, whatever part demeanour played in the judge’s decision it must have been of substantially lesser importance than the application of common sense and the logic of the expert’s opinions. Accordingly, in my view, this Court should approach the task before it on the basis that, while it may not be in precisely as good a position as the trial judge in considering the competing views of the experts, it is free to overturn her Honour’s decision if it concludes that, giving full respect and weight to her conclusion, and taking into account the fact that demeanour to a minor degree may have influenced that conclusion, her Honour was wrong.

107 This case involves two conflicting theories as to the cause of Mr Guest’s injuries. Each party submits that the theory advanced by the other is improbable. In a case such as this the Court must bear in mind that a trier of fact, confronted with divergent cases being advanced by the parties, may decline to accept either case: Suvaal v Cessnock CityCouncil (at 1455; [36]).

108 A valuable guide in cases such as the present is provided by Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 per Dixon CJ at 304 to 305 where the Chief Justice said (albeit in dissent):

Bradshaw v

McEwans Pty Ltd

Holloway v McFeeters

‘All that is necessary is that according to the course of common experience the more probable inference from the circumstances that sufficiently appear by evidence or admission, left unexplained, should be that the injury arose from the defendant’s negligence. By more probable is meant no more than that upon a balance of probabilities such an inference might reasonably be considered to have some greater degree of likelihood.’ (at pp 480, 481).

But the law which this passage attempts to explain does not authorise a court to choose between guesses, where the possibilities are not unlimited, on the ground that one guess seems more likely than another or the others. The facts proved must form a reasonable basis for a definite conclusion affirmatively drawn of the truth of which the tribunal of fact may reasonably be satisfied.”

Luxton v Vines

109 See also Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds (“The Popi M”) [1985] 1 WLR 948, where the trial judge wrongly regarded himself as compelled to make a choice between a theory which he regarded as extremely improbable and a theory which he regarded as being “one in respect of which any mechanism by which it could have operated was in doubt” (at 955). Lord Brandon (with whom the other members of the House of Lords agreed) said at 955 to 956:

The Sign of

Four

In my view there are three reasons why it is inappropriate to apply the dictum of Mr Sherlock Holmes, to which I have just referred, to the process of fact-finding which a judge of first instance has to perform at the conclusion of a case of the kind here concerned.

The first reason is one which I have already sought to emphasise as being of great importance, namely, that the judge is not bound always to make a finding one way or the other with regard to the facts averred by the parties. He has open to him the third alternative of saying that the party on whom the burden of proof lies in relation to any averment made by him has failed to discharge that burden. No judge likes to decide cases on burden of proof if he can legitimately avoid having to do so. There are cases, however, in which, owing to the unsatisfactory state of the evidence or otherwise, deciding on the burden of proof is the only just course for him to take.

The second reason is that the dictum can only apply when all relevant facts are known, so that all possible explanations, except a single extremely improbable one, can properly be eliminated. That state of affairs does not exist in the present case: to take but one example, the ship sank in such deep water that a diver’s examination of the nature of the aperture, which might well have thrown light on its cause, could not be carried out.

The third reason is that the legal concept of proof of a case on a balance of probabilities must be applied with common sense. It requires a judge of first instance, before he finds that a particular event occurred, to be satisfied on the evidence that it is more likely to have occurred than not. If such a judge concludes, on a whole series of cogent grounds, that the occurrence of an event is extremely improbable, a finding by him that it is nevertheless more likely to have occurred than not, does not accord with common sense. This is especially so when it is open to the judge to say simply that the evidence leaves him in doubt whether the event occurred or not, and that the party on whom the burden of proving that the event occurred lies has therefore failed to discharge such burden.

In my opinion Bingham J adopted an erroneous approach to this case by regarding himself as compelled to choose between two theories, both of which he regarded as extremely improbable, or one of which he regarded as extremely improbable and the other of which he regarded as virtually impossible.”

These remarks, too, are of relevance in the present case.

Mr Guest’s criticisms of the judge’s findings

110 Mr Harben submitted that Dr Henderson’s evidence was “fatally flawed” and her Honour should have rejected his evidence in the entirety. It is necessary to address these submissions.

111 A number of Mr Harben’s submissions in this regard involved Dr Henderson’s errors in assuming that certain scars to Mr Guest’s body were caused by trauma on 30 December 2000 whereas, in fact, they were incisions made during the course of surgery carried out on Mr Guest after he was taken to hospital. Sidis DCJ referred to errors of this kind by Dr Henderson, and she took them into account. I have above observed that Dr Henderson later accepted that he had made these erroneous assumptions but maintained the correctness of his theory (which did not depend on them). I do not think these particular criticisms are of any significant weight.

112 Other criticisms involved differences between Dr Henderson and Dr Ghaly. Firstly, Dr Henderson expressed the opinion that the wound on Mr Guest’s hip was caused by a stab with a knife. Dr Ghaly did not agree. Mr Harben submitted that “Dr Ghaly’s evidence was obviously preferable” as he had been the treating surgeon and Dr Henderson had only seen photographs after surgery had been carried out. Secondly, Dr Henderson asserted that a knife cut could explain a laceration in Mr Guest’s right groin over the upper thigh. Dr Ghaly, however, said that there was in fact no laceration to be seen but merely an abrasion where the top layer of skin had been shaved off. Thirdly, Dr Ghaly said that the lacerations on the right arm were ragged and not clean cut. Mr Harben submitted that this was inconsistent with an injury caused by a cut but was consistent with an injury brought about by a protruding point on a motor vehicle. Fourthly, Dr Henderson referred to an injury to Mr Guest’s right hand as a defensive wound. Dr Henderson’s view in this regard was initially based on the fact that the injury was to the palm. Dr Ghaly said however that it was on the under border of the hand.

113 On my reading of the material, in the first two matters Dr Ghaly was not expressing an opinion that did not admit of another possibility being a reasonable one. As to the third, it seems to me to be more a matter of conjecture than anything else as to whether the wound to the arm was caused by a knife or not. As to the fourth matter, the different position of the injury to the hand does not mean that it was not a defensive injury (as Dr Henderson remarked in cross-examination). I do not think that these criticisms take the matter much further. They raised issues for the trial judge (and raise issues for this Court). It was not submitted that these were matters that Sidis DCJ ignored. They do not render Dr Henderson’s theory “fatally flawed”, or even necessarily result in the weight of his evidence being discounted.

114 Mr Harben submitted that Sidis DCJ should have discounted Dr Henderson’s evidence because the injuries to Mr Guest’s scrotum were ragged and not what might have been expected from a knife attack (as suggested by Dr Henderson). Dr Ghaly accepted, however, that the injuries to the scrotum might have been caused by an assault. This submission is not well-founded.

115 Mr Harben submitted that the opinion of Dr Rapaport should be discounted as Dr Rapaport, by his reference to a “focally blunt” damage to the testicles was considering a “squarely frontal collision”. He said that Dr Rapaport did not consider a protuberance that could have torn the scrotal region of Mr Guest as he somersaulted over a vehicle. Dr Rapaport, however, was describing the nature of the damage, not its cause. The Nominal Defendant tendered Dr Rapaport’s report without objection and Dr Rapaport was not called to testify. In my view, his evidence has to be regarded as being of general application.

116 As regards Mr Gibson, Mr Harben submitted that her Honour misunderstood his evidence and made errors in assessing it. He submitted that the concern her Honour had with the absence of significant head or back injury or damage to the lower part of Mr Guest’s body was misplaced. He submitted that in the absence of knowledge of the precise mechanism of the accident it was impermissible for the judge to speculate about its cause. He submitted that, had Mr Guest been catapulted over a protruding part of the vehicle, he could have had his scrotum ripped and torn and then landed heavily on his chest, causing the fractures and abrasions. He submitted that this would not necessarily have led to the type of damage that her Honour was troubled about. He pointed to the injury to Mr Guest’s knee. He submitted that the absence of injuries in the areas concerned could only be relevant if her Honour knew of the precise mechanism of the accident and configuration of the vehicle.

117 These submissions are not without some force, but Sidis DCJ was merely expressing the common sense view (supported by the Rivani report) that, had a vehicle struck Mr Guest with the force required to cause his injuries, one would have expected him to sustain injuries to his head and back. Further, the absence of any external injuries to the knees is inconsistent with direct trauma to the lower part of Mr Guest’s body (which is essential to Mr Gibson’s theory).

118 Mr Harben submitted that her Honour was wrong to be critical of Mr Gibson for referring to different scenarios. He submitted that the thrust of Mr Gibson’s evidence was that, because pedestrian impacts are chaotic and there are many unknown factors, it is desirable to look at a number of scenarios. He submitted that on the scenarios postulated by Mr Gibson the injuries suffered by Mr Guest are explicable. In my view, however, the judge was merely expressing some disquiet because of Mr Gibson’s shifting of ground as the force of the opposing views became apparent. Her Honour was entitled to take this view, which essentially involves credibility aspects. I should add that, on my reading of Mr Gibson’s testimony, he was not a convincing witness.

119 Mr Harben submitted that her Honour placed too much emphasis on the contamination of the scrotal injury by road dirt. He submitted that the existence of road dirt did not necessarily support the scenario of the knife attack. He pointed out that Dr Ghaly said that he remembered road dirt “more than anything else” and his reply should not be taken to mean that only road dirt was present in the wound. The importance of Dr Ghaly’s testimony on this issue, however, is that he did not recall any of Mr Guest’s clothing being in the scrotal wound, which is a likely consequence had the wound been caused by a vehicle impact.

120 I am not persuaded that Sidis DCJ should have rejected Dr Henderson’s views. Her Honour expressly took into account many of the points made by Mr Harben and I am not persuaded that she erred in her approach to Dr Henderson’s evidence

The factors supporting the inference that Mr Guest was injured by a vehicle

121 The following factors support the inference that Mr Guest was injured by a vehicle:

(a) Save for the damage to the scrotum, there is nothing unusual in Mr Guest’s injuries having been caused by an impact with a vehicle. The scrotum injuries, according to Mr Gibson, could have been caused by an impact with a vehicle (although the medical practitioners were sceptical of this conclusion).

(b) Mr Guest’s injuries are explicable, according to Mr Gibson, by his knees being struck by a vehicle driving east to west, his body being thrown into the air in a forward trajectory, his chest then colliding with part of the vehicle, some protuberance on the vehicle penetrating his shorts and injuring his scrotum, and then him sliding along part of the vehicle or the roadway, thereby causing the abrasions. This scenario is not improbable - according to Mr Gibson, alone.

(c) The finding of the material on the roadway near where Mr Guest was lying is more consistent with a vehicle collision than anything else.

(d) It is possible that a sharp object cut through the crotch of Mr Guest’s shorts and undershorts and then cut the scrotum and castrated Mr Guest. The material fragments found lying on the road and the proximity of material fragments to two pieces of flesh support this scenario. The material fragments appear to come from Mr Guest’s shorts. They did not come from the vertical cut to which I have referred. They may have come from a cut to the crutch of the shorts prior to the arrival of the ambulance officers. These matters are, however, entirely speculative and there is no semblance of probability about them.

(e) There was no evidence that Mr Guest had enemies. No person knew that he would be travelling along the Old Bar Road at the time and the idea of a planned ambush is absurd.

(f) There is no apparent reason why any person would assault Mr Guest so severely in such an open place, with vehicles travelling along it from time to time.

(g) The idea that Mr Guest was struck on the chest with a baseball bat is difficult to accept; had an assault occurred the most likely part of his body that would have been struck is his head.

(h) Had someone wished to castrate Mr Guest, the obvious way would have been by pulling his pants off first. This seems unlikely to have happened here, as his shorts and underpants were on when he was found. The idea that assailants would have removed his pants, castrated him, and put his pants back on again, is difficult to accept.

(i) The idea that he was castrated through the relatively small slit in his shorts and underpants is improbable. Why would the assailants use such a difficult method?

(j) If the assailants had made the vertical cuts in the pants and underpants, it is difficult to understand why those cuts did not penetrate or cut Mr Guest’s penis or the flesh adjacent to it.

(k) The scenario advanced by the Nominal Defendant postulates criminal conduct involving a deliberate and dreadful assault on Mr Guest. The Court, in evaluating competing hypotheses, will apply the presumption against criminality in civil cases: Effem Foods Ltd v Nicholls [2004] ATPR 42-034 at [26] per Handley JA.

122 I would make three comments about these factors. First, the weight to be given to the vehicle theory depends, to a significant degree, on the cogency or otherwise of the evidence of Mr Gibson. Secondly, Mr Gibson – who was an engineer and not a medical practitioner – was the only expert who displayed any confidence in the notion that an impact with a vehicle could have caused the damage to the scrotum. Thirdly, many of the factors listed do not positively affirm the likelihood of the vehicle theory, rather they are arguments against the assault theory.

The contrary factors

123 The following factors are contrary to the inference that Mr Guest was injured by a vehicle:

(a) The unequivocal opinion of Dr Henderson that impact with a vehicle could not have caused the castration injuries.

(b) Dr Rapaport’s unchallenged evidence that the damage to both testicles without injury to the thigh, femoral, hip or iliac regions cannot readily be explained in the context of motor vehicle trauma. This is to be considered with his unchallenged evidence that a large moving vehicle striking the groin region of a pedestrian might be expected to cause injuries of a more diffuse nature and concomitant lower limb, long bone and pelvic fractures might be expected to be seen.

(c) The unchallenged evidence of Dr Tarrant and Dr Berghouse that it is surprising that Mr Guest did not have a fractured pelvis or femoral fractures or other bony injury, in keeping with the notion of the scrotum damage being caused by vehicle impact. Dr Ghaly’s evidence is to the same effect.

(d) The evidence of Drs Ghaly and Henderson and Mr Gibson that they had never seen such injuries to a scrotum caused by a vehicle impact.

(e) The cuts in the pants and the underpants were vertical, but the cut that removed the testicle and tore the scrotum must have been substantially horizontal as the scrotum was cut more or less horizontally. It is difficult to understand how a sharp object on the vehicle could cause vertical cuts in the pants and underpants but a horizontal cut to the scrotum. Even if a body is thrown about in the air, the pants and underpants would remain aligned in the position they are always in. One would not ordinarily expect a protuberance on a vehicle to make a vertical cut in the pants and underpants and, in virtually the same motion, make a virtually horizontal cut across the scrotum (and miss the penis).

(f) It is also not easy to envisage a sharp protruding object on a vehicle in the same action cutting one testicle off and crushing the other completely.

(g) On Mr Guest’s case the laceration to the scrotum had to occur through his shorts and underpants and yet there was no evidence of fibre or any of the material he was wearing being found in the wound. Only road dirt was mentioned.

(h) It is by no means clear how a blow above Mr Guest’s centre of gravity would throw him upwards.

(i) Mr Gibson’s theory of how Mr Guest was lifted in to the air, how he injured his sternum and his scrotum and then received his abrasions, involves much speculation and, even if notionally possible, depends on an extremely unusual concatenation of circumstances.

(j) According to the Rivani report, while collisions with motor vehicles produce a wide range of injuries in pedestrians, leg and head injuries are the most frequently reported. Yet the evidence established that Mr Guest only had internal injuries to his knees (not caused by direct trauma) and no discernable head injury. The judge found that no “real explanation” was advanced by Mr Guest to explain the absence of significant head or back injury or of other damage to the lower part of his body.

(k) In the time that Mr Douglass took to drive to Old Bar and to return to the scene, Mr Guest had moved from the centre of the northern lane to the northern edge of the road. There is nothing to say that he did not move earlier, before Mr Douglass saw him. Mr Guest’s last recollection was of walking east along the northern side of Old Bar Road along its edge that is, after he had passed the Metz Road intersection, yet, when he was seen by Mr Douglass, he was in the middle of the northern half of the road. Thus, the place where Mr Douglass first saw Mr Guest may not have been the place where he was injured.

(l) Dr Ghaly said that, with the injury to Mr Guest’s scrotum, he would have expected “blood to fall down on the ground”. He said, where the whole scrotum was damaged, “I expect the blood to come through the skin, through the clothing on to the ground”. Dr Ghaly said that the injury to the scrotum would cause a “pooling of blood”. The evidence, however, established that there was no observable pool of blood at the location where Mr Guest was found.

(m) Again, the absence of a pool of blood suggests that the place where Mr Guest was found may not have been the place where he was injured. This has potential significance when it is borne in mind that, depending on the precise time when he was injured, there was a period of at least an hour of Mr Guest’s actions that were unexplained.

(n) The theory that Mr Guest was walking towards Taree, that is, west (having turned around and retraced his steps) has to be discounted because there was far more injury to his right side than his left. The case propounded by Mr Harben was based on the proposition that Mr Guest was walking east on the left hand edge of the road and was struck by a vehicle coming towards him, completely on the wrong (northern) side of the road. The road where Mr Guest was found is virtually straight; visibility was unimpeded. While it is by no means unknown for drivers to veer across an open road, it is not a normal occurrence. Mr Gibson’s testimony does not support the proposition that the collision occurred in the northern lane.

(o) The scenario postulated on Mr Guest’s behalf, is that the driver of the vehicle (who was on his incorrect side of the road at the time of the impact) left the scene and did not report the accident. This assumes criminal conduct on his or her part (albeit of a lesser degree than the criminal conduct that would be involved had an assault occurred).

(p) There were no signs on the road of debris from a vehicle and no brake marks.

(q) When first asked by the police, Mr Guest denied that he had been struck by a vehicle (but I do think too much weight should be attributed to this answer as Mr Guest may then have not been in a fit condition to know what had happened to him, particularly if he was suffering from amnesia).

Conclusion as to the cause of the injuries

124 Mr Harben pointed out, correctly, that very many matters that might normally have been used to reconstruct the accident are simply not known. These include the position of Mr Guest on the roadway at impact, his position after impact, the direction he was facing at impact, whether he was moving or not, whether he was upright or crouched or bent in any way, or taking evasive action, the direction and speed of the vehicle, the alignment of the vehicle, the type, size, weight and configuration of the vehicle and whether it had anything attached to it or on it or hanging from it and the damage to the vehicle. The fact that these matters are unknown does not, in my view, assist Mr Guest.

125 I accept that all Mr Guest’s injuries, save for the castration, the abrasions to the front of the chest and the derangement of the right knee were readily capable of being caused by an impact with a motor vehicle.

126 The abrasions could possibly have been caused by Mr Guest being attached by some means to a vehicle and being dragged by it along the road for a short distance. The absence of abrasions to other parts of the body such as the face and the front of the legs is, however, noteworthy.

127 It is possible that the derangement to the knee was caused by a motor vehicle accident; the accident might have caused Mr Guest to twist or fall in a way that caused that injury. It is, again, however, noteworthy that he suffered no apparent traumatic impact blow to the lower limbs at all.

128 I do not accept, on a balance of probabilities, that the scrotum injuries could have been caused by an impact from a vehicle without the surrounding areas suffering more trauma than occurred. The area in question appears to have been specifically targeted.

129 I also do not accept, on a balance of probabilities, that the damage to the scrotum occurred through the cutting or crushing motion of a protuberance through the vertical cut it had brought about to the shorts and underpants.

130 There are serious questions about the place where the accident is said to have occurred. This is not without relevance as, had Mr Guest been found in the bush, say 100 metres off the road, the possibility of an assault might have been less improbable than if the place where he was injured were known to be the middle of the road.

131 These matters, in my view, lead to the conclusion that Sidis DCJ was correct in her decision. I, too, am not persuaded that Mr Guest was injured by a vehicle. The evidence left her Honour in serious doubt as to whether a vehicle struck Mr Guest and I, too, entertain the same degree of doubt. The matters listed under the heading “The contrary factors” reinforce this conclusion.

132 In coming to this conclusion I did not, initially, take into account any aspect of demeanour. At the initial stage, I relied solely on inferences drawn from the facts and the opinions expressed by the witnesses. On my reading of the reasons of Sidis DCJ, however, her Honour had some (unexpressed) reservations about Mr Gibson’s evidence. This is suggested to me by her Honour’s criticisms of his testimony. Such reservations would have confirmed her Honour’s view of the probabilities. As I have said, I did not find Mr Gibson’s testimony convincing and that is a further factor that reinforces my conclusion.

133 I accept that the assault theory is unlikely. I have set out the factors that lead me to this conclusion. But, on the authorities, where the Court determines that the version advanced by a plaintiff is not a probable one, the Court does not have to choose the most likely of competing theories. In my opinion Sidis DCJ rightly held that Mr Guest did not discharge the onus upon him.

Negligence

134 Were I to be wrong in this finding, I would not hold the driver to be negligent. The reason for this is that I am not persuaded on a balance of probabilities that the place where Mr Guest was found is where the impact occurred.

135 A finding that Mr Guest was injured by a vehicle means, necessarily, that he was struck more or less in the vicinity of where he was found. This involves accepting the theory that the material found strewn near his body was thrown about when he rotated after the impact. Such a finding would be consistent with Mr Guest’s testimony that he walked along Old Bar Road past the intersection with Metz Road.

136 But such acceptance does not, necessarily, mean an acceptance that the impact occurred on the northern lane as Mr Harben submitted. The fact is that Mr Guest moved on his own to the northern edge of the road after Mr Douglass went by. If he was capable of moving then, the inference is that he was capable of moving after he was struck and before Mr Douglass first saw him. He also moved, once the police arrived, to the police vehicle. There is nothing to show, one way or another, whether he did in fact move after he was struck. Therefore, one cannot infer that he was struck precisely where Mr Douglass saw him. Mr Guest might equally have been struck in the centre of the southern lane and then moved to the northern lane before Mr Douglass came by. It is simply not known where he was struck.

137 As Mr Guest was walking along Old Bar Road, he attempted to flag down oncoming vehicles. He had done it on a few occasions but had been unsuccessful in persuading anyone to stop. It is not inconceivable that he was struck on the southern part of the road after crossing in an attempt to flag down another oncoming vehicle. It is not possible to infer that, if this occurred, he walked slowly across. He might equally have run suddenly, from the northern verge, to the southern lane in front of the oncoming vehicle. He was, after all, severely intoxicated. This would be precisely the kind of thing that Dr Dauncey said Mr Guest might do. It is also possible that he was not walking on the northern verge but closer to the centre of the road. This is another unknown factor.

138 In Nominal Defendant v Puglisi the High Court held that the fact that a driver fled from the scene was a circumstance which a jury could take into account in reaching a conclusion as to the manner in which an accident occurred. Gibbs CJ said at 475:

“In my opinion, it may be inferred in the circumstances of the present case that the driver of the vehicle drove off because he was conscious that his careless driving had caused his vehicle to collide with a pedestrian.”

Puglisi

Holloway v McFeeters

Puglisi

139 If it be the case that Mr Guest ran in front of the vehicle, I do not think that the driver’s failure to stop necessarily involved an admission of negligence on his or her part. The road was a deserted country road and the incident, on the assumptions made, must have occurred at about 4.00 am. It would have been a totally unexpected time and place for a driver to find a drunken pedestrian moving across the road and, perhaps, waving his arms (in an attempt to flag the driver down). Not only would such an incident not be foreseeable, the driver might well have been fearful of the person who suddenly appeared in front of his or her vehicle. The driver might not have known whether the person was seriously injured or not, and might have been fearful of stopping.

140 In both Holloway v McFeeters and Puglisi there was other evidence, apart from the fact of a collision and the driver decamping, that tended to establish negligence. There was no such evidence here.

141 In Nesterczuk v Mortimore (1965) 115 CLR 140 two vehicles approaching each other struck one another a glancing blow. There was nothing to indicate the whereabouts in the road where the collision had occurred. It was plain, as Owen J remarked at 155:

“… [t]he collision would not have occurred had not one or other driver or both of them failed to exercise due care …”

“In the circumstances of the case, to say that the probabilities favour the view that both drivers were to blame rather than that one or the other was wholly responsible would be a mere guess.”

“Doubtless the facts spoke for themselves, and eloquently, of negligence: but of whose negligence they had nothing convincing to say.”

142 In my view, the circumstances of this case lead to the same result.

Conclusion

143 I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

**********

Citations

Guest v The Nominal Defendant [2006] NSWCA 77

Most Recent Citation

Cases Citing This Decision

1,666

The King v Ryan Churchill (a pseudonym) [2025] HCA 11

Naaman v Jaken Properties Australia Pty Limited [2025] HCA 1

RC v The Salvation Army (Western Australia) Property Trust [2024] HCA 43

Cases Cited

17

Statutory Material Cited

0

Re Hillsea Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1152

Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon [2003] HCA 48

Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

CITATION:	Guest v The Nominal Defendant [2006] NSWCA 77
HEARING DATE(S):	05/04/06
JUDGMENT DATE:	25 May 2006
JUDGMENT OF:	Mason P at 1; Handley JA at 15; Ipp JA at 16
DECISION:	Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	COURTS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM - appellant injured in unknown circumstances - appellant suffering from partial amnesia - unusual combination of injuries - appellant alleged that he had been struck by a motor vehicle - expert witnesses at trial propounded two alternative theories to explain the appellant's injuries - whether an appellate court can overturn a decision of a trial judge when it is based on the competing views of expert witnesses - whether a judge can decline to accept either theory - Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds ("The Popi M") [1985] 1 WLR 948 discussed - determination of probabilities - the task of an appellate court when the trial judge's decision in regard to a conflict between experts is based only to a minor degree on demeanour. - EVIDENCE - whether admission by conduct by a driver binding on the Nominal Defendant - whether failure to stop after accident is admission by driver. D
CASES CITED:	Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2002) 194 ALR 485 Biogen Inc v Medeva Plc (1997) RPC 1 CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena (2006) 224 ALR 1 Dearman v Dearman (1908) 7 CLR 549 Effem Foods Ltd v Nicholls [2004] ATPR 42-034 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Holloway v McFeeters (1956) 94 CLR 470 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352 Nesterczuk v Mortimore (1965) 115 CLR 140 Nominal Defendant v Puglisi (1984) 58 ALJR 474 Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds ("The Popi M") [1985] 1 WLR 948 Suvaal v Cessnock City Council (2003) 77 ALJR 1449 The Ghannibanta (1876) 1 PD 283 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
PARTIES:	Benjamin Timothy Guest (Appellant) The Nominal Defendant (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40201/05
COUNSEL:	S Harben SC (Appellant) P J Deakin QC/E Beilby (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:	Baker Love Lawyers (Appellant) Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 437/03
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Sidis DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:	04/03/2005