Court of Appeal
New South Wales
Case Title: Nominal Defendant v Saleh Medium Neutral Citation: [2011] NSWCA 16 Hearing Date(s): 24 February 2010 Decision Date: 17 February 2011 Jurisdiction: Before: Beazley JA [1]
Giles JA [2]
McColl JA [3]Decision: 1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the verdict and judgment for the respondent of $1,333,398 and the order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs.
3. Remit the proceedings to the District Court for a new trial on all issues.
4. Costs of the first trial to be at the disposal of the judge conducting the new trial.
5. Respondent to pay appellant's costs of the appeal and have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) if otherwise qualified.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: TORTS - negligence - motor vehicle accident - whether unidentified vehicle caused plaintiff’s accident - whether verdict in plaintiff’s favour sustainable
APPEAL - appellate review of findings - whether errors in process of fact-finding - whether denial of procedural fairness -whether defendant deprived of fair trial - whether substantial miscarriage of justice
APPEAL - appellate review - natural justice - whether denial of procedural fairness - whether case determined in plaintiff’s favour substantially on points not raised by plaintiff and not identified by primary judge at trial - whether primary judge acted of own motion absent cross-examination or submissions by plaintiff to reject evidence of defendant’s witnesses - whether failure to consider parties’ submissions - whether failure to give party opportunity to deal with potential adverse finding - whether primary judge’s conclusions favouring plaintiff’s case soundly based
APPEAL - appellate review - whether denial of procedural fairness to defendant to award plaintiff substantially more than amount sought for head of damages
EVIDENCE - expert evidence - opinion - whether factual basis for expert opinion established - whether facts expert relied on to form opinion “sufficiently like� facts established at trial
EVIDENCE - expert evidence - report admitted without objection - oral evidence adduced without objection - whether open to primary judge to reject opinion on basis factual foundation not established
EVIDENCE - cross-examination - failure to cross-examine - whether trial judge may reject evidence not challenged in cross-examination - whether rejection of evidence not challenged in cross-examination may lead to wrong finding of fact
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)Cases Cited: Adamson v Ede [2009] NSWCA 379
Arnotts Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1990) 24 FCR 313
Balenzuela v De Gail [1959] HCA 1; 101 CLR 226
Bradshaw v McEwans Pty…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Nominal Defendant v Saleh and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] NSWCA 16
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in his fact-finding process, whether the Nominal Defendant had been denied procedural fairness, and whether the verdict in favour of the plaintiff was sustainable. Specifically, the court considered whether the primary judge had determined the case on points not raised by the plaintiff, acted of his own motion to reject the defendant's evidence without adequate opportunity for the parties to respond, failed to consider submissions, or awarded damages significantly exceeding the amount sought for a particular head of damage without proper notice. The court also examined whether the primary judge was entitled to reject expert evidence, even if admitted without objection, on the basis that its factual foundation was not established, and whether rejecting evidence not challenged in cross-examination could lead to a wrong finding of fact.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had denied the Nominal Defendant procedural fairness. The judge had rejected the evidence of the defendant's witnesses, including expert evidence, on grounds that were not foreshadowed by the plaintiff and were not the subject of submissions or cross-examination. This meant the Nominal Defendant was not afforded an opportunity to address the adverse findings or to present further evidence or submissions. The court concluded that the primary judge's approach deprived the Nominal Defendant of a fair trial and that there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The verdict and judgment in favour of Mr. Saleh were set aside, and the proceedings were remitted to the District Court for a new trial on all issues. The costs of the first trial were to be determined by the judge conducting the new trial, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the verdict and judgment for the respondent of $1,333,398 and the order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs.
3. Remit the proceedings to the District Court for a new trial on all issues.
4. Costs of the first trial to be at the disposal of the judge conducting the new trial.
5. Respondent to pay appellant's costs of the appeal and have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) if otherwise qualified.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.