Hadid v Redpath

[2002] NSWCA 16

CITATION:	Bylander v Multilink [2002] NSWCA 16
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40741/00
HEARING DATE(S):	11/02/02
JUDGMENT DATE:	11 February 2002
PARTIES :	Bylander International Consortium (Australia) Pty Limited ACN 079 739 736 (First Appellant) Thambiappah Satchithanantham (Second Appellant) Hemalathasothy Ranjini Satchithanantham (Third Appellant) Multilink Investments Pty Limited ACN 060 200 526 (First Respondent) Devjani Mohanty as representative of Arvind Mohanty (Second Respondent)
JUDGMENT OF:	Mason P; Santow JA; Ipp AJA

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	DC 9139/98
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Boyd-Boland ADCJ

COUNSEL:	J Patel (Appellant) J A Trebeck (Respondents)
SOLICITORS:	-- (Appellant) Bush Burke & Co (Respondents)
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE - Decision in short form under s45(4) of Supreme Court Act - No appealable error - Principles applicable where findings of trial judge in substantial part based on credibility - Oral submissions of further grounds not properly pleaded or properly articulated in grounds of appeal. D
LEGISLATION CITED:	Supreme Court Act s45(4)
CASES CITED:	Damberg v Damberg [2001] NSWCA 87
DECISION:	Appeal dismissed with costs

- 4 -IN THE SUPREME COURT

CA 40741/00
DC 9139/98
MASON P
SANTOW JA
IPP AJA


11 February 2002

BYLANDER INTERNATIONAL CONSORTIUM (AUSTRALIA) & ORS v MULTILINK INVESTMENTS PTY LTD & ORS

SHORT REASONS FOR DECISION

1 The appeal is dismissed with costs and the Court is of the unanimous opinion that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle. Pursuant to s45(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970, the Court’s reasons for decision in short form are as follows.

2 This appeal either re-agitates issues dealt with by Boyd-Boland ADCJ or attempts to introduce new issues not the subject of the grounds of appeal by the Second Appellant, nor the Notice of Grounds of Defence filed by the Second Appellant in the District Court as Second Defendant.

3 As to the first category of issues and the Grounds of Appeal pertaining to them, the Court sees no error in His Honour’s reasons.

4 Those issues principally relate to an appeal on the ground that the trial Judge erred in his assessment and evaluation of the evidence. The Second Appellant does not identify any appealable error under the principles for setting aside or ordering a new trial, as usefully summarised by Heydon JA in Damberg v Damberg [2001] NSWCA 87 at 89, quoted below, more especially when the findings of the trial judge are in substantial part based on credibility:

“89. It would be unusual to set aside, or order a new trial on the ground of, the trial judge’s findings based on the husband’s credibility unless it could be concluded that the trial judge failed to use or palpably misused the advantage he had of seeing and hearing the witnesses, or that the trial judge relied on evidence which was inconsistent with facts incontrovertibly established by the evidence, or that the trial judge acted on evidence which was glaringly improbable, or that the trial judge fell into some error of principle, or that the trial…