Jones v Hyde - [1989] HCATrans 39

~ ;,i~~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Registry No CS of 1988
B e t w e e n -
DERRICK ALAN JONES
Appellant

and
STEPHEN ROBERT HYDE
Respondent

BRENNAN J

.DEANE J

Jones(2)

DAWSOt-i J TOOHEY J McHUGH J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 1 MARCH 1989, AT 10.17 AM:

C2T 2/1/MB

1/3/89

MR B.T. SULLY, QC:

In this matter, may it please the Court,

I appear with my learned friend, MR R.L. CROWE,
for the appellant who was the plaintiff in the
supreme court and the respondent in the i~termediate
Court of Appeal. (instructed by Gary Robb & Associates)

MR R.J. ELLICOTT, QC:

If the Court pleases, I appear with

MR A.S. MORRISON, for the respondent. (instructed
by Crossin Power Haslem)

BRENNAN J:

Mr Sully.

MR SULLY:

May it please the Court.

May we hand up outlines

of the argument?

BRENNAN J:

Thank you. Yes, Mr Sully.

MR SULLY:

May it please the Court.

May we ask whether

Your Honours have had the opportunity of seeing
either the judgment of Mr Justice Kelly at first
instance or the judg~ent in the Court of Appeal?

BRENNAN J:	Yes, the Court has read the judgments in the courts below.
MR SULLY:	Then it is sufficient to say perhaps, and by way

of leading into the submissions that we desire to
put to Your Honours,that the contest before
Mr Justice Kelly was between the plaintiff as the
driver of a motor cycle, the defendant as the driver of a motor vehicle which had come into
collision in Gladstone Street in Canberra.
His Honour delivered an extemporary judgment in which he found a verdict for the plaintiff, refused a submission that there should be a discount for
contributory negligence and proceeded to assess
damages. The matter went to the Full Court, if
we may remind Your Honours, on the basis of a notice
of appeal which is set out at page 119 of the
appeal papers.and which was, if we may say so,

very brief and to the point. It simply took three

grounds of appeal. One was that:
His Honour erred in law in finding a verdict
for the plantiff.

The second was that:
His Honour erred in law in finding that there
was no contributory negligence on the part of
the plaintiff.

And the third was:
Further grounds as become apparent when documentation and the like became available.

C2T2/2/MB	2	1/3/89
Jones(2)

MR SULLY (continuing):

The proceedings before the Full Court

resulted in a short unitary judgment of the
court which set aside Mr Justice Kelly's verdict
for the plaintiff and which remitted the whole
matter to the supreme court for further hearing.
The judgment in the Full Court commences on page 121
and the reasoning of the Full Court is made apparent
at page 123 in a short sentence of three lines which
really sums up, in the end, the entirety of the
approach that the Full…

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.

Continue reading Jones v Hyde

Details

AGLC: Jones v Hyde [1989] HCATrans 39
Case: [1989] HCATrans 39
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jones v Hyde concerned a collision between a motorcycle driven by the plaintiff and a motor vehicle driven by the defendant. The plaintiff had succeeded at first instance in the Supreme Court, with the trial judge finding a verdict for the plaintiff and refusing to apply any discount for contributory negligence. The defendant appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the Full Court included whether the trial judge erred in law by finding a verdict for the plaintiff and whether the trial judge erred in law in finding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The Full Court was required to determine if the trial judge's reasons for judgment adequately revealed his findings of fact regarding the circumstances of the accident.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the verdict for the plaintiff and remitting the matter for further hearing. The Court reasoned that the trial judge's reasons did not clearly reveal his findings of fact concerning the accident. The Full Court noted its powers under section 27 and section 28 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, which allow an appellate court to draw inferences of fact and to set aside a judgment and remit proceedings for further hearing. The Court concluded that, for these reasons, the appeal should be allowed.

Orders