HENRICK -v- KUBALE [2001] WASCA 274

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 274
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	FUL:159/2000	Heard:	10 AUGUST 2001
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ STEYTLER J WHEELER J	Delivered:	12/09/01
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	D
PDF Version

Parties:	MICHAEL RALPH HENRICK GLEN HOWARD KUBALE
Catchwords:	Appeal Evidence Whether trial Judge failed to evaluate evidence adequately No error of law Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Arthur v Cooke (1988) 6 MVR 466 Leak v Willits (1988) 7 MVR 61 Lloyd v Faraone [1989] WAR 154 Mocevic v Proc Group Ltd [2001] WASCA 45 Stojkovski v Fitzgerald [1989] WAR 328

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : HENRICK -v- KUBALE [2001] WASCA 274 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

STEYTLER J

WHEELER J

HEARD : 10 AUGUST 2001 DELIVERED : 12 SEPTEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : FUL 159 of 2000 BETWEEN : MICHAEL RALPH HENRICK

Appellant (Plaintiff)

AND

GLEN HOWARD KUBALE

Respondent (Defendant)

Catchwords:

Appeal - Evidence - Whether trial Judge failed to evaluate evidence adequately - No error of law - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: D

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant (Plaintiff) : Mr A S Stavrianou

Respondent (Defendant) : Mr J R Brooksby

Solicitors:

Appellant (Plaintiff) : D'Angelo & Partners

Respondent (Defendant) : Greenland Brooksby

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Arthur v Cooke (1988) 6 MVR 466
Leak v Willits (1988) 7 MVR 61
Lloyd v Faraone [1989] WAR 154
Mocevic v Proc Group Ltd [2001] WASCA 45
Stojkovski v Fitzgerald [1989] WAR 328

(Page 3)

1 MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion this appeal should be dismissed for the reasons to be published by Wheeler J, with which I am in complete agreement.

2 STEYTLER J: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for decision to be published by Wheeler J. I agree with them and have nothing to add.

3 WHEELER J: This is an appeal from a decision of Williams DCJ dismissing the appellant's action against the respondent in respect of a traffic accident which the appellant alleged was caused by the negligence of the respondent.

4 The respondent was the driver of a white utility and had been driving in a westerly direction along Scarborough Beach Road until he came to the intersection of Scarborough Beach Road and Hutton Street. At that intersection Scarborough Beach Road and Hutton Street form a T-junction, with Scarborough Beach Road the continuing and Hutton Street the terminating road. The speed limit on Scarborough Beach Road is 60 kms per hour. There are two lanes of traffic in an easterly directions and two lanes in a westerly direction along Scarborough Beach Road, save that at the traffic lights there is for west-bound traffic a "slip lane"; that is, a third lane for a short distance leading up to…

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 Henrick v Kubale 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: [2001] WASCA 274
Decision Date: 12 SEPTEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involves a dispute between the parties Henrick and Kubale. The nature of the dispute revolves around the adequacy of the trial judge's evaluation of evidence presented during the trial. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had failed to evaluate the evidence properly, and if this constituted an error of law. The appeal was heard in a relevant Australian appellate court.

The legal issues that the court had to decide pertain to the extent to which the trial judge had adequately evaluated the evidence and whether such evaluation was sufficient to justify an error of law. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the trial judge's approach to the evidence was flawed and whether this flaw constituted a material error in the legal process. The central issue was whether the trial judge's evaluation of the evidence was adequate and whether this adequacy was a matter of fact or law.

The court found that the trial judge had not made any error of law in evaluating the evidence. It was determined that the adequacy of the evaluation turned on the facts of the case and was not a matter of law. The court emphasised that the evaluation of evidence is a factual matter that depends on the specific circumstances of each case. Given that the trial judge had carefully considered the evidence and provided reasons for their evaluation, the court concluded that there was no basis for finding an error of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the trial judge was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.