Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Mai v Nguyen [2024] NSWCA 215 Hearing dates: 23 August 2024 Date of orders: 02 September 2024 Decision date: 02 September 2024 Before: Mitchelmore JA at [1];
Kirk JA at [2];
Griffiths AJA at [62]Decision: (1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs.
Catchwords: APPEALS – Adequacy of reasons – Brief ex tempore reasons – Distinct claim in tort not addressed – No substantial wrong or miscarriage occurred due to failure to address – Appellant not deprived of possibility of successful outcome
APPEALS – From findings of fact – Finders of fact entitled to degree of practical judgment with respect to certain matters – Limits of judicial notice – No substantial wrong or miscarriage – Failure to address claimed tendency to violence – Not necessary in every case for judge to determine whether to accept version of events given by party not bearing the onus
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 144
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 51.53
Cases Cited: Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Lee v Lee [2019] HCA 28; (2019) 266 CLR 129
Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36; (2018) 265 CLR 236
Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 265; (2001) 53 NSWLR 98
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Van Mai (Appellant)
Thi Than Thuy Nguyen (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
L Robison and L Smith (Appellant)
Q Nguyen (Respondent) (Sol)
Santone Lawyers (Appellant)
QV Law (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/125397 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Citation:
Not applicable
- Date of Decision:
- 07 March 2024
- Before:
- Weber DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2022/153529
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
The appellant, Mr Van Mai, claimed that the respondent, Ms Thi Than Thuy Nguyen, falsely imprisoned him in one of the restaurants that he owned between 10pm on 12 June 2018 and 9am the next morning, and that she assaulted and battered him in that restaurant on 16 June 2018. His claims were dismissed by the District Court. He appealed with respect to the dismissal of the claims for assault and battery.
By eight grounds of appeal the appellant complained that the primary judge: (1) failed to exercise jurisdiction by reason of a failure to determine the appellant’s assault claim, as opposed to his claim for battery; (2) inappropriately substituted his own knowledge on matters of medical causation; (3) failed to address the respondent’s “history of violence” asserted in a tendency notice served by the appellant; (4) disregarded the appellant’s evidence even when corroborated by admissions made by respondent and by other evidence; (5) failed to assess the respondent’s credit; (6) misapplied the principles in
Continue reading Mai v Nguyen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Mai v Nguyen [2024] NSWCA 215
- Case
- [2024] NSWCA 215
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge erred by failing to provide detailed reasons for rejecting a distinct claim in tort made by the appellant, and whether the judge's findings of fact, particularly concerning a claimed tendency to violence by the respondent, were sufficiently reasoned. The court was required to consider whether any perceived inadequacy in the reasons constituted a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Mitchelmore and Kirk JJA, with Griffiths AJA agreeing, held that while the trial judge's ex tempore reasons were brief and did not explicitly address the tort claim or the alleged tendency to violence, this did not occasion a substantial wrong or miscarriage. The court reasoned that the finder of fact is entitled to a degree of practical judgment, and it is not always necessary for a judge to determine every contested factual issue, especially when the onus of proof lies with the party making the claim. The court concluded that the appellant had not been deprived of the possibility of a successful outcome due to these omissions.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.