Mai v Nguyen

The appeal in *Mai v Nguyen* concerned a dispute between the appellant and the respondent. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's reasons for judgment were adequate, particularly in light of certain aspects of the case that were not explicitly addressed.

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.