Hart v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd - [2005] QCA 421

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hart v Consolidated Meat Group P/L [2005] QCA 421

PARTIES:

NATALIE JOY HART  (plaintiff/respondent)  v  CONSOLIDATED MEAT GROUP PTY LIMITED
ACN 065 093 709 (defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 4166 of 2005   SC No 327 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 November 2005

JUDGES:

Williams JA and Muir and Atkinson JJ  Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – WHERE FINDINGS BASED ON CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES – respondent suffered workplace related injury – primary judge found respondent a witness of credit – appellant asserts primary judge misused his advantage in hearing and seeing witnesses and failed to give due weight to matters reflecting unfavourably on respondent’s credit – appellant asserts primary judge relied excessively on demeanour in reaching conclusion as to respondent’s credit

EVIDENCE – ADMISSABILITY AND RELEVANCY – OPINION EVIDENCE – EXPERT OPINION – primary judge preferred evidence of respondent’s sole medical expert over appellant’s three medical experts – appellant asserts primary judge misused his advantage in hearing witnesses in coming to this conclusion – whether primary judge relied too heavily on demeanour – whether primary judge adequately articulated his reasons for preferring one expert over another – whether evidence supports primary judge’s conclusions

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 211

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167, cited   Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472, considered Dyson v Leeds City Council [2000] C.P. Rep 42, cited      Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118, applied Jones v Hyde (1989) 63 ALJR 349, cited Public Trustee v Commonwealth of Australia, unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 20 December 1995, considered  Wiki v Atlantis Relocations (NSW) Pty Ltd (2004) 60 NSWLR 127, considered

COUNSEL:

S C Williams QC, with W P D Campbell, for the appellant  D V C McMeekin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the appellant  McKays Solicitors (Mackay) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for the judgment of Muir J and there is nothing I wish to add thereto. I agree with the order proposed.

MUIR J: After a two day trial of a personal injuries action in the Supreme Court in Rockhampton, the learned primary judge found for the plaintiff and assessed quantum at $307,883.30. The appellant/defendant appeals, contending that damages should have been assessed, after allowing for a refund to CMG WorkCover, in the sum of $41,285.01. The grounds of appeal, broadly expressed, are that the primary judge misused his advantage in hearing and seeing the witnesses and, wrongly, accepted the evidence of the plaintiff and preferred the expert medical opinion evidence of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hart v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] QCA 421
Decision Date: 18 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Hart v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd involved a dispute over a workplace-related injury. The respondent alleged that they suffered an injury due to the negligence of the appellant, Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd. The primary judge found in favour of the respondent, crediting their testimony and preferring the opinion of their sole medical expert over that of the appellant's three medical experts. The appellant contested the decision, arguing that the primary judge misused his advantage in hearing and seeing witnesses, failed to give due weight to matters reflecting unfavourably on the respondent's credibility, and relied excessively on demeanour in reaching his conclusion.

The legal issues in the appeal centred on whether the primary judge had correctly exercised his functions as an appellate court, particularly in assessing the credibility of witnesses and the admissibility and relevance of expert evidence. The appellant argued that the primary judge had not adequately articulated his reasons for preferring one expert's opinion over another and questioned whether the evidence supported the primary judge's conclusions. Additionally, the appellant contended that the primary judge had relied too heavily on demeanour in assessing the respondent's credibility.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the primary judge had properly exercised his functions. The court noted that assessments of credibility often depend on demeanour, and the primary judge had given detailed reasons for his findings. The court also held that the primary judge's preference for the respondent's expert was supported by the evidence, and there was no misuse of advantage. The appellate court found that the primary judge's reasons were sufficient and that the evidence supported his conclusions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Hart v Consolidated Meat Group P/L [2005] QCA 421
PARTIES:	NATALIE JOY HART (plaintiff/respondent) v CONSOLIDATED MEAT GROUP PTY LIMITED ACN 065 093 709 (defendant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 4166 of 2005 SC No 327 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	18 November 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 November 2005
JUDGES:	Williams JA and Muir and Atkinson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – WHERE FINDINGS BASED ON CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES – respondent suffered workplace related injury – primary judge found respondent a witness of credit – appellant asserts primary judge misused his advantage in hearing and seeing witnesses and failed to give due weight to matters reflecting unfavourably on respondent’s credit – appellant asserts primary judge relied excessively on demeanour in reaching conclusion as to respondent’s credit EVIDENCE – ADMISSABILITY AND RELEVANCY – OPINION EVIDENCE – EXPERT OPINION – primary judge preferred evidence of respondent’s sole medical expert over appellant’s three medical experts – appellant asserts primary judge misused his advantage in hearing witnesses in coming to this conclusion – whether primary judge relied too heavily on demeanour – whether primary judge adequately articulated his reasons for preferring one expert over another – whether evidence supports primary judge’s conclusions Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 211 Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167, cited Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472, considered Dyson v Leeds City Council [2000] C.P. Rep 42, cited Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118, applied Jones v Hyde (1989) 63 ALJR 349, cited Public Trustee v Commonwealth of Australia, unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 20 December 1995, considered Wiki v Atlantis Relocations (NSW) Pty Ltd (2004) 60 NSWLR 127, considered
COUNSEL:	S C Williams QC, with W P D Campbell, for the appellant D V C McMeekin SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the appellant McKays Solicitors (Mackay) for the respondent