Newman v Harrington - [2015] QDC 327

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Newman v Harrington [2015] QDC 327

PARTIES:

DOREEN NEWMAN

(appellant)

v

PATRICK JOHN HARRINGTON

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

3822/13

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 December 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 May 2015

JUDGE:

Sheridan DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Leave granted to appeal.

2.   Appeal upheld.

3.   The orders made by the learned magistrate on 24 September 2013 and 29 September 2014 are vacated.

4.   The following orders be substituted:

  i.   Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $14,389.28 together with interest in the amount of $8,567.15 making the total judgment sum $22,956.43;

  ii.   The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs on a standard basis, as agreed or as assessed.

5.   The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal on a standard basis as agreed or as assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW – FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION – EXTENT OF OBLIGATION TO GIVE REASONS – where reasons for decision not given at time of delivery of judgment – where judgment delivered 18 months after completion of evidence – whether learned magistrate erred in law in failing to use or misusing the advantage in properly considering and assessing the credit and reliability of witnesses

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – IMPROPER REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - where learned magistrate ruled expert evidence as inadmissible

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – WHERE FINDINGS CLEARLY WRONG – verdict against evidence or weight of evidence – preponderance of evidence in favour of unsuccessful party

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE – where offer to withdraw

Fair Trading Act 1989, s 38

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 361, r 663, Part 5

Expectation Pty Ltd v PRD Realty Pty Ltd & Anor (2004) 140 FCR 17

Flannery v Halifax Estates Agencies Limited [2000] 1 WLR 377

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Goose Wilson Sanford & Co (unreported, England & Wales Ct of App (Civil Div), Gibson, Brooke, Mummery LLJ, 13 February 1998)

Jones v Millward [2005] 1 Qd R 498

Palmer v Clarke (1989) 19 NSWLR 158

Rolls v Radford & Ors (No 2) [2012] QSC 170

Rose v R (1993) 69 A Crim R 1

R v Banhelyi [2012] QCA 357

Sultana Investments Pty Ltd v Cellcom Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 287

COUNSEL:

AG Reilly for the appellant

S Malcomson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Maitland Lawyers for the appellant

Paul Clough for the respondent

The claim by the appellant/plaintiff was for loss and damages suffered by the appellant following the purchase by the appellant of a light aircraft on or about 19 September 2006. Prior to entering into…

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 Newman v Harrington

Details

AGLC: Newman v Harrington [2015] QDC 327
Case: [2015] QDC 327
Decision Date: 18 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Newman v Harrington, the appeal was heard by the court following a decision made by a magistrate. The dispute centred on the magistrate's handling of evidence, particularly expert testimony, and the failure to provide reasons for the judgment. The appeal also questioned the magistrate's assessment of witness credibility and the rejection of certain evidence.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the magistrate had erred in law by not providing reasons for the judgment, the admissibility of expert evidence, and the extent to which the appellate court could interfere with the magistrate's findings of fact. The court had to determine whether the magistrate's decision was against the weight of the evidence and if the findings were clearly wrong.

The court found that the magistrate had indeed erred in law by not providing reasons for the decision, which was delivered 18 months after the completion of evidence. This failure to give reasons undermined the magistrate's ability to properly consider and assess the credit and reliability of witnesses. Additionally, the court ruled that the magistrate improperly rejected the expert evidence. The appellate court concluded that the findings of the magistrate were against the evidence or the weight of the evidence, with the preponderance of evidence favouring the appellant.

The court granted leave to appeal, upheld the appeal, and vacated the magistrate's orders. A new judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff, awarding $14,389.28 plus interest of $8,567.15, totalling $22,956.43. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on a standard basis. The respondent was also ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal on a standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave granted to appeal.

2. Appeal upheld.

3. The orders made by the learned magistrate on 24 September 2013 and 29 September 2014 are vacated.

4. The following orders be substituted:

i. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $14,389.28 together with interest in the amount of $8,567.15 making the total judgment sum $22,956.43;

ii. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs on a standard basis, as agreed or as assessed.

5. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal on a standard basis as agreed or as assessed.

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.

CITATION:	Newman v Harrington [2015] QDC 327
PARTIES:	DOREEN NEWMAN (appellant) v PATRICK JOHN HARRINGTON (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	3822/13
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	18 December 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 May 2015
JUDGE:	Sheridan DCJ
ORDER:	1. Leave granted to appeal. 2. Appeal upheld. 3. The orders made by the learned magistrate on 24 September 2013 and 29 September 2014 are vacated. 4. The following orders be substituted: i. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $14,389.28 together with interest in the amount of $8,567.15 making the total judgment sum $22,956.43; ii. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs on a standard basis, as agreed or as assessed. 5. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal on a standard basis as agreed or as assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW – FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION – EXTENT OF OBLIGATION TO GIVE REASONS – where reasons for decision not given at time of delivery of judgment – where judgment delivered 18 months after completion of evidence – whether learned magistrate erred in law in failing to use or misusing the advantage in properly considering and assessing the credit and reliability of witnesses APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – IMPROPER REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - where learned magistrate ruled expert evidence as inadmissible APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – WHERE FINDINGS CLEARLY WRONG – verdict against evidence or weight of evidence – preponderance of evidence in favour of unsuccessful party APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – COSTS – INDEMNITY COSTS – OFFERS OF COMPROMISE – where offer to withdraw Fair Trading Act 1989, s 38 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 361, r 663, Part 5 Expectation Pty Ltd v PRD Realty Pty Ltd & Anor (2004) 140 FCR 17 Flannery v Halifax Estates Agencies Limited [2000] 1 WLR 377 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Goose Wilson Sanford & Co (unreported, England & Wales Ct of App (Civil Div), Gibson, Brooke, Mummery LLJ, 13 February 1998) Jones v Millward [2005] 1 Qd R 498 Palmer v Clarke (1989) 19 NSWLR 158 Rolls v Radford & Ors (No 2) [2012] QSC 170 Rose v R (1993) 69 A Crim R 1 R v Banhelyi [2012] QCA 357 Sultana Investments Pty Ltd v Cellcom Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 287
COUNSEL:	AG Reilly for the appellant S Malcomson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Maitland Lawyers for the appellant Paul Clough for the respondent