Hydrepair Pty Limited v Cameron

Hydrepair Pty Limited sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Appeal. The dispute concerned a claim brought by Leonard Cecil Cameron against Hydrepair Pty Limited. At trial, the judge found in favour of Mr Cameron, a decision that was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The applicant, Hydrepair Pty Limited, contended that the trial judge had erred by deciding the case on a basis not advanced by the plaintiff, thereby denying the defendant a proper opportunity to be heard.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had impermissibly departed from the case pleaded and presented by the plaintiff. Specifically, the plaintiff's case was that the brakes on his vehicle had failed entirely due to hydraulic failure, resulting in a complete loss of pedal pressure. However, the trial judge's judgment was based on a finding of inadequate stopping power or inefficient braking, a case that the plaintiff had explicitly disavowed during the proceedings.

The applicant argued that the adversary system requires parties to define the issues, and a judge cannot decide a case on grounds not put forward by the plaintiff, as this is unfair and denies the defendant the chance to present a defence to that specific case. The plaintiff's evidence, particularly during cross-examination, consistently maintained that the ultimate cause of the collision was a total failure of the hydraulic system, leading to the brake pedal going to the floor, and that prior observations of pulling or pulsating were unrelated to this catastrophic failure. The applicant asserted that the trial judge's reliance on a case of inefficient braking, rather than the pleaded case of hydraulic failure, constituted a fundamental error.