Kosa v State Rail Authority of NSW

[2001] NSWCA 397

CITATION:	KOSA v STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NSW [2001] NSWCA 397
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 41068/00
HEARING DATE(S):	2 November 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:	2 November 2001
PARTIES :	MARGARET KOSA v STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NSW
JUDGMENT OF:	Mason P at 1; Sheller JA; Mathews AJA

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	DC 7247/98
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Downs ADCJ

COUNSEL:	Appellant: C K Stewart Respondent: D P O'Dowd
SOLICITORS:	Appellant: A S Margiotta Respondent: Gillis Delaney Brown
CATCHWORDS:	Appeal - short form reasons - no error by trial judge - sufficiency of trial judge's reasons. (ND)
DECISION:	Dismissed with costs.

CA 41068/00
MASON P
SHELLER JA
MATHEWS AJA


Friday 2 November 2001

Margaret KOSA v STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

JUDGMENT

1 MASON P: The hearing of this appeal proceeded subject to a foreshadowed challenge to the competency of the appeal. It is unnecessary to resolve that matter. We have proceeded on the basis that the appeal was competent.

2 The Court orders that the appeal is dismissed with costs. The Court is of the unanimous opinion that the appeal does not raise any question of general principle. Pursuant to s 45(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970, the Court’s reasons for the decision in short form are as follows.

3 The appeal re-agitates the issues dealt with by Downs ADCJ. The Court sees no error in his Honour’s reasons. All but one of the grounds relied upon by the appellant relate to findings of fact which were amply supported by the evidence before his Honour. The complaint that Downs ADCJ gave insufficient reasons for preferring the evidence of the respondent’s expert to that of the appellant’s expert lacks foundation. A judge does not have to address the minutiae of each argument put before him or her, so long as the reasons for preferring one version over the other are sufficiently exposed. They were so exposed in this case.

************