Legal Research
Cases
Lee v Knapik

Lee v Knapik

Case [2015] NSWSC 334 2 April 2015

Appeal

Limitation Periods

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lee v Knapik [2015] NSWSC 334
Hearing dates: 24 March 2015
Date of orders: 02 April 2015
Decision date: 02 April 2015
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1)Summons seeking Leave to Appeal filed 10 June 2014 by Ms Lee is dismissed.
(2)Order Ms Lee to pay the defendants’ costs of that Summons.
(3)Cross-Summons filed 18 July 2014 by Ms Knapik is dismissed.
(4)Order Ms Knapik to pay the defendants costs of that Cross Summons.

Catchwords: APPEAL – motor vehicle accident – summons seeking leave to appeal Local Court decision – cross-summons filed – s 39 Local Court Act 2007 – appeal from Local Court to Supreme Court only on question of law – whether error of law or error of fact – error of fact – summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed – cross-summons dismissed
Legislation Cited: Justices Act 1902
Local Court Act 2007
Motor Traffic Act 1909
Cases Cited: Australian Gaslight Co v The Valuer-General (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 126
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
CSR Ltd v Amaca Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 338
Dennis v Watt (1942) 43 SR (NSW) 32,
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 32; (2010) 241 CLR 390
R v District Court: Ex parte White [1966] HCA 69; (1966) 116 CLR 644
RL&D Investments Pty Ltd v Bisby [2002] NSWSC 1082
Waterford v The Commonwealth [1987] HCA 25; (1987) 163 CLR 54
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rosemary Lee (P)
Jane Knapik (D1)
Gasline Pty Ltd (D2)
Friedrich Devries (D3)
Representation:
Counsel:
D E Grieve QC (P)
J Hynes (D1)
J Gruzman (D2, D3)
Solicitors:
Self Represented (P)
William Roberts Lawyers (D1)
Barrie Fudge & Co (D2, D3)

File Number(s): 2014/172399
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

___________________________________________________________________

Judgment

Pacific Highway Accident

On 27 October 2012, Ms Lee was driving a Holden Barina south on the Pacific Highway at Roseville. She changed lanes from the centre of three lanes (Lane 2) to the lane nearest the median strip (Lane 3).
Ms Knapik’s vehicle, a Honda, was at that time travelling in Lane 3, also in a southbound direction. That car reacted to Ms Lee’s change of lane by braking suddenly, bringing the Honda sharply to a halt. Ms Knapik is the first defendant in Ms Lee’s proceedings in this Court and, by the filing of a Cross‑Summons, applies for various relief.
At the time the Holden Barina (Ms Lee’s vehicle) and the Honda (Ms Knapik’s vehicle) crossed from Lane 2 into Lane 3, a large, although unladen, semi‑trailer was being driven in a southerly direction in Lane 3. It was being driven by Mr Friedrich Devries, who was an employee of Gasline Pty Ltd (“Gasline”), which was the owner of that semi-trailer.
When Mr Devries saw the brake lights on the Honda illuminate, and the Honda stop suddenly, he applied the brakes on the…

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 Lee v Knapik

Details

AGLC: Lee v Knapik [2015] NSWSC 334
Case: [2015] NSWSC 334
Decision Date: 02 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the plaintiff, Lee, against the defendant, Knapik, following a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a Local Court decision in favour of Knapik. A cross-summons was subsequently filed by Knapik, seeking the dismissal of the appeal and the imposition of costs. The legal issue before the court was whether the appeal was valid, given the statutory restrictions on appeals from the Local Court to the Supreme Court. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the appeal was based on a question of law or an error of fact, as the statute permits appeals on questions of law only.

The court examined the nature of the appeal and found that it was based on an error of fact rather than a question of law. The plaintiff had not identified any legal error in the Local Court's decision but rather contested the factual findings made by the Local Court. Given that appeals from the Local Court to the Supreme Court are restricted to questions of law under the Local Court Act, the court held that the plaintiff's appeal was not valid. Consequently, the summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed, and the cross-summons was also dismissed, with no order for costs.

The court's decision was grounded in the statutory framework governing appeals from the Local Court to the Supreme Court. The court held that the plaintiff's appeal did not meet the criteria for a valid appeal, as it was based on an error of fact rather than a question of law. The court did not consider the merits of the plaintiff's argument regarding the factual findings but focused on the procedural requirement that appeals must be based on questions of law. As a result, the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, and the cross-summons was also dismissed.

Orders