New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.HEARING DATE(S): 28 April 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:
15 May 2009JUDGMENT OF: Ipp JA at 1; McColl JA at 2; Bryson AJA at 85 DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside the orders made by Finnane DCJ on 5 October 2007. 3. Remit the matter to the District Court of New South Wales for a new trial. 4. Costs of the first trial to abide the event of the second trial. 5. Respondent to pay the appellants’ costs of the appeal and to have a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 if otherwise entitled. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – appeal – proceedings to recover fees said to be due on wrongful termination of agreement – competing versions of making of agreement and its terms – ex tempore judgment – whether failure to give reasons for decision – extent of obligation to give reasons – adequacy of reasons - APPEAL – new trial – inadequate reasons – whether new trial should be ordered – whether evidence so compelling Court should not order new trial LEGISLATION CITED: Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 CATEGORY: Principal judgment CASES CITED: Barrier Wharfs Ltd v W Scott Fell & Co Ltd [1908] HCA 88; (1908) 5 CLR 647
Beale v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Bourke v Beneficial Finance Corp Ltd (1993) 47 FCR 264
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council [2001] NSWCA 61; (2001) 53 NSWLR 153
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8; (2002) 209 CLR 95
Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd t/as Colleys Professional Services [2000] 1 All ER 373
Goodrich Aerospace Pty Limited v Arsic [2006] NSWCA 187; (2006) 66 NSWLR 186
Hull v Thompson [2001] NSWCA 359
Hunter v Transport Accident Commission (2005) 43 MVR 130; [2005] VSCA 1
Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81
Maviglia v Maviglia [1999] NSWCA 188
Meates v Attorney-General [1983] NZLR 308
Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725
Moylan v Nutrasweet Co [2000] NSWCA 337
Najdovski v Crnojlovic [2008] NSWCA 175
North Sydney Council v Ligon 302 Pty Ltd (1995) 87 LGERA 435
NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (formerly Government Insurance Office (NSW)) v Mesiti (Court of Appeal, 1 December 1994, unreported)
Pacific Carriers Limited v BNP Paribas [2004] HCA 35; (2004) 218 CLR 451
Palmer v Clarke (1989) 19 NSWLR 158
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Palme [2003] HCA 56; (2003) 216 CLR 212
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Limited (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) [1999] HCA 3; (1999) 73 ALJR 306
Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd v Massoud [1989] VR 8
TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd 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.
Details
- Case
- [2009] NSWCA 110
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in *Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd* concerned a dispute over fees allegedly due following the wrongful termination of an agreement. The parties presented conflicting accounts regarding the formation of the agreement and its specific terms. The primary judge delivered an ex tempore judgment.
The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the primary judge’s failure to provide adequate reasons for their decision constituted a ground for appeal, and if so, whether a new trial should be ordered. The court also considered the extent of the obligation to give reasons in an ex tempore judgment and whether the evidence was so compelling that a new trial should be refused.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge’s reasons were inadequate, failing to sufficiently explain the basis for accepting one version of events over the other and thus hindering proper appellate review. Applying principles of procedural fairness and the importance of reasoned judgments, the court determined that the inadequacy of the reasons necessitated a new trial. The court noted that while an ex tempore judgment may be brief, it must still provide a discernible basis for the decision.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the orders of the District Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new trial. The costs of the first trial were ordered to abide the event of the second trial, with the respondent ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal.
The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the primary judge’s failure to provide adequate reasons for their decision constituted a ground for appeal, and if so, whether a new trial should be ordered. The court also considered the extent of the obligation to give reasons in an ex tempore judgment and whether the evidence was so compelling that a new trial should be refused.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge’s reasons were inadequate, failing to sufficiently explain the basis for accepting one version of events over the other and thus hindering proper appellate review. Applying principles of procedural fairness and the importance of reasoned judgments, the court determined that the inadequacy of the reasons necessitated a new trial. The court noted that while an ex tempore judgment may be brief, it must still provide a discernible basis for the decision.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the orders of the District Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new trial. The costs of the first trial were ordered to abide the event of the second trial, with the respondent ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside the orders made by Finnane DCJ on 5 October 2007. 3. Remit the matter to the District Court of New South Wales for a new trial. 4. Costs of the first trial to abide the event of the second trial. 5. Respondent to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal and to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 if otherwise entitled.
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.