Hamamdjian v Lipovac

The appeal concerned a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff, Mr Hamamdjian, alleged the defendant, Mr Lipovac, was negligent. The dispute centred on the lane from which Mr Lipovac had emerged. Mr Hamamdjian contended that Mr Lipovac had turned right from a lane designated solely for right turns, thereby causing the collision. Mr Lipovac maintained he had been travelling straight ahead from a lane that permitted both straight and right turns. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in accepting the evidence of Mr Lipovac over that of Mr Hamamdjian. This involved determining whether the trial judge was entitled to resolve inconsistencies in the evidence and make findings of fact in the absence of independent witnesses, particularly given that the onus of proof rested with the plaintiff. The court also considered the inherent plausibility of each party's account of the accident.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was entitled to accept Mr Lipovac's evidence. The judge had carefully considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the inherent implausibility of Mr Hamamdjian's version of events. The absence of independent witnesses did not preclude the judge from making a finding of fact based on the evidence before him, including his assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. The trial judge's findings were therefore upheld.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.