Housden v Boral Australian Gypsum Ltd

In the case of Housden v Boral Australian Gypsum Ltd, the appellant, Housden, sought to appeal a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria which had rejected his claim for compensation for a workplace injury. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in finding that the method of cutting plasterboard, which caused the appellant’s injury, was not as he had described. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the dominant manner of cutting was horizontal or vertical, as the appellant had claimed, or another method as found by the trial judge.

The court considered the principles established in Fox v Percy and Transport Accident Commission v Cuthbertson regarding the nature of rehearing and the review of findings of fact. The court held that the trial judge’s findings were not glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences, and thus no error had been demonstrated. The court also considered whether a new point or issue had been raised on appeal that was not taken at trial, applying the principles from Whisprun Pty Ltd v Dixon. It was found that the new point could have been met by further evidence at trial and thus was not a valid ground for appeal.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the method of cutting plasterboard. The court confirmed the trial judge's findings, which rejected the appellant's claim for compensation. The appeal was dismissed with no orders for costs.