J McIntyre Nominees P/L v Tradeworks Transport P/L

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Magistrates Appeals: Civil)
J MCINTYRE NOMINEES P/L v TRADEWORKS TRANSPORT P/L
[2014] SASC 109
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Bampton
19 August 2014
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - STANDARD OF CARE
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE'S FINDINGS OF FACT - FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT - WHERE FINDINGS BASED ON CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
Appeal against Magistrate’s finding of negligence and liability to pay damages – appellant serviced respondent’s truck – appellant issued minor civil proceedings for unpaid work – respondent counterclaimed claiming damages alleging appellant had been negligent in its performance of the servicing of the truck and had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct – appellant told respondent of need to have truck’s transmission serviced by a specialist mechanic – Magistrate found appellant did not convey the urgency of the need to have the transmission serviced – truck broke down one month after the service performed by appellant – respondent did not have transmission serviced before the breakdown – whether Magistrate erred in her assessment of evidence of the witnesses.
Held: no basis established by the appellant justifying interference with the findings based on the Magistrate’s acceptance of the respondent’s evidence – appeal dismissed.
Magistrates Court Civil Rules 1992 (SA); Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA); Australian Consumer Law s 151, referred to.
CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena (2006) 224 ALR 1; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; Devries v Australian National Railway Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 , considered.

J MCINTYRE NOMINEES P/L v TRADEWORKS TRANSPORT P/L
[2014] SASC 109
Magistrates Appeal: Civil
BAMPTON J.

This is an appeal against a finding of negligence by a Magistrate.
The appellant, J McIntyre Nominees Pty Ltd (“McIntyre”), is a diesel mechanic business that repairs and services commercial trucks.
The respondent, Tradeworks Transport Pty Ltd (“Tradeworks”), operates a business transporting trusses on a crane truck primarily for a related company, Trussworks Pty Ltd.
Background
In 2012, Tradeworks bought an Iveco Stralis truck (“the truck”) for transporting its timber products. The truck had a crane attached to it for lifting the products on and off.
The truck was bought second-hand and without a service history.
Between 5 and 10 October 2012, McIntyre undertook a full service of the truck at Tradeworks’ request. On 8 October 2012, representatives of Tradeworks, Mr Martin and Mr Pryde, collected the truck from McIntyre’s premises and had a discussion with a director of McIntyre, Mr McIntyre. Mr McIntyre advised Mr Martin and Mr Pryde that the truck’s transmission needed to be serviced by a specialist and suggested the business Heavy Automatics SA Pty Ltd (“Heavy Automatics”). During this discussion, Mr McIntyre showed the men a small amount of oil containing metal fragments that had been drained from the transmission.
Following the service, the truck’s crane was serviced in late October by a business specialising in such work. The truck was then used in Tradeworks’ business until 8 November 2012 when it broke down while being driven under heavy load on the South Eastern Freeway. The truck had to be towed to Heavy Automatics. At this time, the truck’s odometer recorded 2,749 km more than was noted at the time of the service by McIntyre. Following the breakdown the truck’s transmission had to be replaced. Tradeworks sourced a second-hand transmission, which was installed by Heavy Automatics in late May 2013. The truck then recommenced delivery of the timber products.
The proceedings
McIntyre issued minor civil proceedings for payment of its unpaid invoice in the sum of $2,872.94 in respect of the work it had performed in servicing the truck.
Tradeworks denied liability for the invoice and counterclaimed alleging that McIntyre’s draining of and failure to replace the transmission oil during the service had caused the total failure of the truck’s transmission and its consequent breakdown. Tradeworks claimed damages alleging that McIntyre had been negligent in its performance of the work and had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in that:
1.it drained transmission oil from the truck and failed to replace that oil;
2.it failed to advise Tradeworks that it had drained but not replaced the transmission oil;
3.it failed to warn Tradeworks not to drive the truck, or not to drive the truck under load, until the transmission had been serviced; and
4.the breakdown occurred due to an absence of oil in the truck’s transmission.
The losses alleged included buying and installing a replacement transmission and loss of 10 weeks’ income until May 2013 whilst the truck was off the road being repaired. The total amount claimed by way of counterclaim was $71,463.24.
The parties agreed to waive the jurisdictional limit of the Magistrates Court on the proviso that the Magistrates Court Civil Rules 1992 (SA) would apply with respect to any issue as to costs.
At trial, Tradeworks accepted that it had a liability to pay the invoice and submitted that the amount of the invoice should be set off against damages sought by way of the counterclaim.
McIntyre did not file a defence to the counterclaim. The trial proceeded on the basis that McIntyre denied that it was negligent or engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.
The witnesses
Tradeworks called evidence from four witnesses; Mr Martin and Mr Sharp co-directors of Tradeworks, Mr Pryde the driver of the truck, employed by Tradeworks, and Mr Bottrill a heavy vehicle mechanic employed by Heavy Automatics.
McIntyre called evidence from its director, Mr McIntyre, and Mr Carmichael, its employee who performed the service on the truck.
The evidence
Mr Martin
Mr Martin gave evidence that there had been no problem with the truck prior to its service by McIntyre. He said that when he attended to collect the truck with Mr Pryde, Mr McIntyre showed him and Mr Pryde a bucket containing an inch or so of transmission oil and some filings.[1] Mr Martin said that Mr McIntyre asked when the last time was that the truck had undergone a proper service. As they did not know the truck’s history, Mr McIntyre said it was in their best interests to get the transmission checked and suggested Heavy Automatics could do the job.
[1] TT 13.
Mr Martin said Mr McIntyre did not say what specifically had been done with respect to the truck’s transmission, or that it was necessary for the transmission oil to be topped up. He did not provide any suggested timeline in which they should get the transmission serviced, or say that the truck should not be driven other than to get its transmission serviced. Mr Martin said that he assumed that the transmission should be serviced in the next service period. He denied that Mr McIntyre told him that the need for the transmission service was urgent. He acknowledged that he had been shown the bucket containing the oil and the fragments to explain that there was a problem with the transmission. He said that he assumed that McIntyre had replaced the oil drained from the transmission and that had he been warned not to drive the truck he would have followed that warning.
Mr Sharp
Mr Sharp’s evidence was that Mr Bottrill told him that there was less than a litre of oil in the transmission when he inspected it after the breakdown, and that Mr Bottrill believed that the lack of oil caused the failure. Mr Sharp said that when he contacted Mr McIntyre after the breakdown and told him what had happened and that they had found less than a litre of oil in the transmission, Mr McIntyre “said that he had quickly checked the oil but didn’t have that, it was a specialist oil which he didn’t have in stock”.[2]
[2] TT 38.
Mr Pryde
Mr Pryde was the only person at Tradeworks with a truck licence. His evidence was that he remembered Mr McIntyre showing him a bucket with a tiny amount of oil in it with very small specks of metal. Mr Pryde said that all truck gearboxes would have a tiny amount of metal specks because of crunching gears. He said he remembered Mr McIntyre telling them they should get the transmission looked at. He said if he was told that he should not drive the truck then he would not have driven it. When Mr Pryde returned to McIntyre’s premises to have a fuel filter fitted later in the day on 8 October, Mr McIntyre did not mention the need to service the transmission.
Mr Pryde said that the truck broke down the first time it was driven up the freeway after the service. He acknowledged that the truck had travelled some 2,749 km since the service and said that on average the truck would do 800 to 1,000 kms a week.
Mr McIntyre
Mr McIntyre’s evidence was that when Mr Pryde and Mr Martin came to pick up the truck he showed them the bits he found in the transmission in the white container. According to Mr McIntyre, he said:[3]
‘This is what I found’ and [Mr Carmichael] said ‘Yeah’, like he’s a petrol mechanic and in his experience he said ‘they don’t last long after this, better get it checked out’. And in my words I said ‘yes, you’re pretty well f’d’.
…
I said ‘It needs to be checked out by a proper transmission specialist’.
[3] TT 83.
Mr McIntyre said that he told them it was unserviceable, that they asked him how much oil was in there and he said he did not know. Mr McIntyre did not tell Mr Martin and Mr Pryde that the oil drained had not been replaced.
When asked what exactly he told Mr Martin and Mr Pryde about the transmission, Mr McIntyre said:[4]
That it needs to be checked by a specialist… ‘If I was you I’d take it to Heavy Automatics Transmission’, that’s what I said.
[4] TT 84.
Mr McIntyre did not reiterate his advice about the need to get the transmission serviced to Mr Pryde when he returned to have a fuel filter installed. He said the next he heard from Tradeworks was about a month later when Mr Sharp called him and explained that the truck had broken down. He said that he got angry with Mr Sharp and said:[5]
‘what did I tell you when you picked it up’ and he said ‘you didn’t tell me’. I just said ‘I told you, I told you, I thought it was you and the driver that it needs to be – the transmission needs seeing to at Heavy Automatics Transmission. I wouldn’t go driving it around’. And he goes ‘Well they never told me that’.
[5] TT 86.
Mr Carmichael
Mr Carmichael was a mechanic employed by McIntyre at the relevant time. He serviced the truck and looked it over to make sure it was safe and roadworthy.
He said he was asked to check the level of the transmission and found it was a bit low. He said he told Mr McIntyre who took a sample out of the transmission. He said he was shown the sample and:[6]
There was looked like pieces of internal trans components that had broken up and had, which had come out of the trans.
[6] TT 91.
He said the sample was less than 100 ml and was old, dirty fluid. He said the truck should not have gone back to work and should have been seen by a specialist. It was his opinion that there was definitely a problem.
Mr Carmichael said that he overheard Mr McIntyre telling the driver and the owner of the truck “that the trans was fucked, it needed to be seen to by a specialist”.[7]
[7] TT 94.
He said that he heard Mr McIntyre tell the owner and driver that the truck was not fit for work and to take it straight to Heavy Automatics.
The Magistrate’s reasons for judgment
The Magistrate identified the following issues for her determination:[8]
1.What was said by McIntyre to the [Tradeworks’] representatives with respect to the truck’s transmissions when they collected the truck on 8 October 2012 and did [McIntyre] act (or omit to act) in any way which was negligent or misleading and/or deceptive;
2.What was the cause of the breakdown;
3.If [McIntyre] was negligent or had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, what was an appropriate assessment of the Counterclaim.
[8] Judgment at [20].
The Magistrate noted that Tradeworks bore the onus of proof to establish that McIntyre had been negligent and/or engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.
The Magistrate formed the impression that all of the witnesses were “genuine, down to earth, hard working people, all of whom endeavoured to honestly convey” their recollections of, in particular, what was said by Mr McIntyre to Mr Martin and Mr Pryde when the truck was collected.
The Magistrate noted that neither Mr Martin nor Mr Pryde were mechanics. She found that Mr Pryde, as a truck driver, had some knowledge about trucks but Mr McIntyre did not know the extent of his or Mr Martin’s understanding about diesel mechanics or a truck’s transmission.
The Magistrate identified that in order to discharge its duty of care McIntyre had to convey to Mr Martin and Mr Pryde in adequate terms the issues identified during the service that may affect the truck’s ability “to properly perform its intended functions”. The Magistrate then proceeded to find that:
·McIntyre, as a special diesel mechanical business, owed Tradeworks a duty to take reasonable care and skill in the exercise of the services it performed for it;
·the evidence established that McIntyre appropriately identified a problem with the truck’s transmission during the service it performed;
·Mr Carmichael was the only witness who gave evidence to the effect that McIntyre told Mr Martin and Mr Pryde that it was necessary for the transmission to be serviced as a matter of urgency;
·Mr McIntyre did not give this evidence;
·it was only Mr McIntyre who spoke to Mr Martin and Mr Pryde about the need for the transmission to be serviced;
·whilst Mr Carmichael was in close proximity when the conversation took place, he was not part of the conversation;
·it was more likely than not that Mr Carmichael and Mr McIntyre discussed between themselves that the transmission was likely to be “fucked”, that it was not likely to last more than a day or so and that it required a specialist service “straight away”;
·it was more likely than not that Mr McIntyre did not convey the urgent need for the service to Mr Martin and Mr Pryde when the truck was collected;
·Mr Carmichael was genuinely mistaken in terms of what he recalled was said by Mr McIntyre during the conversation Mr McIntyre had with Mr Martin and Mr Pryde and his own earlier conversation with Mr McIntyre;
·having identified the problem, McIntyre, whilst informing Tradeworks of the problem, did not convey the urgency for the transmission to be serviced or tell Tradeworks that the truck should not be driven (or only driven for a day or so) before the transmission service was undertaken;
·given McIntyre’s understanding “as to the likely problem with the transmission and the likely and intended use of the truck”, it was in breach of its duty of care in failing to give this advice;
·it was more likely than not that the breakdown was due to the absence of transmission oil in the truck;
·the harm that followed, namely the failure of the truck’s transmission while it was being used under heavy load, was reasonably foreseeable; and
·Mr McIntyre did not tell Tradeworks that the oil that had been drained from the transmission had not been replaced and had this been conveyed it would have strengthened McIntyre’s argument that it had done enough in identifying the problem, so as to meet the requisite standard of care.
The Magistrate applied the Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) and decided that Tradeworks had established that the transmission failed as a result of McIntyre’s negligence and was entitled to its reasonable costs incurred of and incidental to rectifying the transmission’s failure in the sum of $24,433.23. The amount of McIntyre’s invoice of $2,413.19 was set off against this sum, leaving damages payable by McIntyre to Tradeworks in the sum of $22,020.04. The Magistrate found that Tradeworks had failed to mitigate its loss and therefore was not entitled to the total amount it sought by way of counterclaim.
Finally, the Magistrate stated that, given her finding of negligence, it was not necessary to determine whether McIntyre had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct contrary to s 151 of the Australian Consumer Law. However, she considered:[9]
… that as McIntyre knew he had not replaced the oil taken from the transmission and further that any oil left in the transmission was dirty and minimal, in failing to bring this to the defendant’s attention and in failing to impress upon the defendant the necessity for the transmission to be serviced in order for the truck to properly perform its intended functions, he did engage in misleading and deceptive conduct within the meaning of the ACL. Further I find that Martin and Pryde acted to the defendant’s detriment in reliance upon McIntyre’s advice and therefore did not immediately arrange for the truck’s transmission to be serviced.
[9] Judgment at [87].
The appeal
I will consider each ground of appeal in turn.
Ground 1 – The learned Magistrate erred in finding against [McIntyre] in view of her findings at paragraph 69 of her judgment
The Magistrate found:[10]
The defendant agrees that McIntyre showed to both Martin and Pryde a container containing a small amount of transmission oil and some metal fragments at the time they came to collect the truck at the completion of the work. Further there is no dispute that McIntyre told Martin and Pryde that it was necessary for them to arrange for the transmission to be serviced by a specialist. McIntyre said he identified an appropriate service provider, namely heavy automatics, and Martin agreed that McIntyre had done so, I make findings to that effect.
[10] Judgment at [69].
McIntyre submitted that, in view of this finding, Tradeworks had been put on notice that there was a serious defect with the truck’s transmission, as evidenced by the metal fragments and Tradeworks chose to ignore this advice and used the truck. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the subsequent failure of the gearbox was too remote for any liability to be attributed to McIntyre.
Having reviewed the evidence and the reasons for judgment, the Magistrate’s identification of the issues and findings disclose no error of law.
It was open on the evidence for the Magistrate to find that the advice given by McIntyre was not sufficient to discharge the duty of care. It was foreseeable, in the absence of conveying the urgency of the need for a transmission service, that Tradeworks may continue driving the truck and cause damage or further damage to the transmission and its ultimate failure.
It is clear Mr McIntyre told Tradeworks there was a problem with the transmission. It was Mr Carmichael’s evidence that he told Mr Martin and Mr Pryde to take the truck straight to Heavy Automatics. This was not Mr McIntyre’s evidence. His evidence was that he told them they had to take it to Heavy Automatics. He did not advise them not to drive it or use it for more than a day before it was serviced. Further, Mr Carmichael acknowledged in his evidence that, as a specialist mechanic, it was part of McIntyre’s job to advise the truck owner whether the truck was able to go back to work.
The Magistrate found that McIntyre should have told Tradeworks that the truck needed to undergo a transmission service performed by a specialist as a matter of urgency.
Ground 2 – the learned Magistrate erred in her findings at paragraph 72 of her judgment as to the difference between Tradeworks’ pleaded case and the impact on the evidence given at trial by the witnesses Martin and Sharp.

Tradeworks pleaded in the counterclaim that the truck broke down during its first delivery job after the service. Counsel for McIntyre adduced evidence to the effect that the truck had travelled 2,749 km between the service and the breakdown.
The Magistrate determined the difference between the evidence given and the pleading was as an oversight or miscommunication between solicitor and client as opposed to a deliberate fabrication. The Magistrate accepted all of the witnesses, including Mr Martin and Mr Pryde, as genuine witnesses. The variance may also be explained by Mr Pryde’s evidence to the effect that the truck broke down the first time it was driven up the freeway after the service.
In my view, there is no basis to interfere with the Magistrate’s assessment of the credibility and reliability of the witnesses and her conclusion regarding the pleading and the evidence given about when the breakdown occurred.
Ground 3 – the Magistrate erred in her assessment of the evidence of the witness Carmichael at paragraph 77 of her judgment.
McIntyre asserted that given that the Magistrate had accepted that Mr Carmichael and Mr McIntyre had discussed and formed a view that the transmission required immediate repair, it was improbable that Mr McIntyre would not have conveyed this to Mr Martin and Mr Pryde when they attended to collect the truck. McIntyre points to Mr Carmichael’s recollection of the urgency being conveyed in support of this ground.
The Magistrate carefully assessed Mr Carmichael’s evidence to the effect that during the course of the service performed on the truck he discussed with Mr McIntyre the fact that the transmission was “likely fucked, may not last for more than a day or so” and that a specialist transmission service was required straightaway. The Magistrate considered it likely that Mr Carmichael confused what was said in this earlier discussion and what he later overheard of the discussion between Mr McIntyre, Mr Martin and Mr Pryde whilst packing up his tools nearby.
In my view, it was open to the Magistrate to make this finding based on her assessment of the evidence given about the relevant discussions and her assessment of the reliability of Mr Carmichael’s recollections. Mr Carmichael was not part of the conversation. Further, Mr McIntyre’s evidence about what was said did not accord with Mr Carmichael’s evidence about what was said.
Ground 4 – The Magistrate erred in her finding at paragraph 79 that McIntyre was in breach of his duty of care and that the subsequent breakdown some four weeks later after the truck had travelled around 2,749 kilometres was reasonably foreseeable. This finding appears to contradict her acceptance of Mr Bottrill’s evidence at paragraph 47 of her judgment.
Mr Bottrill stated that a small amount of oil was drained from the transmission following the failure. He estimated that the transmission could only have continued to operate for a day had that amount of oil been in it. It is submitted by McIntyre that, on the balance of probabilities, the evidence suggested that there must have been a larger quantity of oil within the transmission when it left the workshop. The Magistrate found it was reasonably foreseeable that in the absence of the advice being given that the truck would fail whilst being driven under heavy load. The Magistrate accepted the evidence of Mr Pryde that the truck had broken down the first time it was driven up the freeway under a full load of roof trusses and the evidence of Mr Bottrill that driving a truck under load uphill placed extra stress on the gearbox. I agree with the respondent’s assertion that all Tradeworks needed to do was prove that if the transmission was not immediately serviced and the truck was driven it was foreseeable that damage might occur. It was not necessary for it to establish a timeframe within which the transmission was likely to fail. The fact that the truck lasted longer than Mr Carmichael and Mr Bottrill expected does not affect the duty owed by McIntyre.
Ground 5 – the Magistrate appears to have premised all her findings on the assumption that there was only one litre of transmission fluid in the truck at the time it left the plaintiff’s premises.
There was no finding premised on an assumption that there was only one litre of transmission fluid in the transmission at the time the truck was collected. There is no evidence from which the Magistrate could make a finding about the amount of fluid remaining in the transmission at the time it was collected on 8 October 2012. The Magistrate correctly stated “we do not know how much oil was in the truck’s transmission when it left the plaintiff’s premises”. She stated that the evidence of Mr Carmichael and Mr McIntyre suggested that there was a minimal amount of oil left in the transmission. That inference is available on their evidence. Mr McIntyre gave evidence that Mr Carmichael called him over because no oil was coming out when he was checking the oil level of the transmission. Mr McIntyre said he then stuck his own finger in the filler plug on the side of the transmission and felt no oil. He said he then opened the drain plug and moved “it away just to get a drizzle out of it and still nothing came out”.
There is no evidence available to make a finding as to how much oil was in the transmission when the truck was collected. Mr Pryde and Mr Bottrill gave evidence that they did not observe any leaking of oil from the transmission following the breakdown. Mr Bottrill also gave evidence that when he inspected the truck after the breakdown; he was only able to drain off one litre of oil. Mr Bottrill also formed the view that the breakdown was caused by a lack of transmission oil. There was no evidence called to challenge this evidence. It was open to the Magistrate to accept it and base her findings on it.
Ground 6 – In dealing with quantum at paragraph 88 of her judgment the Magistrate erred in her finding that there was insufficient evidence to conclude “….that the truck’s transmission required significant repair (and/or replacement) in any event at the time of the work (and therefore irrespective of the breakdown)”
McIntyre contends this is inconsistent with the Magistrate’s acceptance of Mr Carmichael’s evidence regarding his discussion with Mr McIntyre about the state of the transmission. The inference McIntyre asks the Court to draw is that the transmission required more than an oil change for it to be made roadworthy. The only witness who gave evidence about the cause of the truck’s breakdown was Mr Bottrill. Mr Bottrill’s evidence was that oil with the metal fragments observed by the witnesses could mean the transmission was failing or that there was general wear and tear or that there had been poor servicing. As there was no expert evidence called by McIntyre on this topic, the Magistrate was entitled to rely on Mr Bottrill’s uncontested evidence that the only cause he could identify for the breakdown was a lack of transmission oil.
Finally, it is of note that McIntyre did not make any allegation of contributory negligence regarding its allegation that Tradeworks’ failed to make timely arrangements for the transmission to be serviced.
Conclusion
An appeal from the Magistrates Court is by way of rehearing.[11] In considering McIntyre’s appeal, I have undertaken a review of the trial evidence and of the Magistrate’s reasons.[12] In doing so, I have kept in mind what Kirby J identified must be done by way of rehearing in CSR Ltd v Della Maddalena:[13]
... the appellate court is obliged to conduct a thorough examination of the record and a real rehearing. It is not confined to reconsideration of the record in order to correct errors of law, although that will certainly be encompassed in such an appeal. It is required to consider suggested errors of fact-finding. Experience teaches that many errors of this kind arise at first instance, more perhaps than errors of law. Having concluded a rehearing as so described, the appellate court is obliged to ‘give the judgment which in its opinion ought to have been given in the first instance’. This involves, where, as here, there is no jury, conducting a thorough review of the primary judge’s reasons and engaging in the tasks of ‘weighing conflicting evidence and drawing ... inferences and conclusions’.
(Footnotes omitted)
[11] Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 40; Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 286(1).
[12] Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118, 126-127 [25].
[13] (2006) 224 ALR 1, [16].
The Magistrate had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.
It cannot be said that the Magistrate has misused her advantage or acted on evidence inconsistent with facts incontrovertibly established by the evidence or where the conclusion is glaringly improbable.[14]
[14] Devries v Australian National Railway Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 at 479; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118.
There is no basis established by McIntyre justifying interference with the findings based on the Magistrate’s acceptance of Tradeworks’ evidence. It was open to the Magistrate, having found all of the witnesses honest, to find Mr Carmichael’s evidence regarding what Mr McIntyre said to Mr Martin and Mr Pryde unreliable and prefer the evidence of Mr Martin and Mr Pryde. It was also open to her to rely on the unchallenged evidence of Mr Bottrill, a specialist heavy vehicle transmission mechanic, in arriving at her findings regarding the cause of the breakdown.
The Magistrate’s findings are justified based on careful and detailed reasoning.
I dismiss the appeal.

[2014] SASC 109

26 August 2014