Pollard v Wilson

The appeal concerned claims brought by the Pollards against Mrs Wilson and the Botany Bay City Council. The Pollards alleged negligence on the part of Mrs Wilson, and vicarious liability for the actions of her husband or contractors, and also negligence on the part of the Council. The dispute involved the Council's approval of development plans and the impact of these plans, including the failure to notify neighbouring residents and the alleged failure to consider heritage impact.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether Mrs Wilson was liable as a principal for the actions of her husband or contractors, and whether the Council was negligent in its approval process, specifically regarding notification of amended plans, heritage impact, and supervision of works. Further issues related to the admissibility of expert evidence, the trial judge's refusal to allow an amendment to the statement of claim, and whether the trial judge's conduct evidenced bias, thereby warranting disqualification. The court also considered the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons and the quantum of damages.

The court found that criticisms regarding the admissibility of evidence, including an expert report and a newspaper article, were misconceived. The trial judge's interventions during the proceedings, while interventionist, were for the purpose of understanding the case and facilitating the efficient disposition of the trial, and did not demonstrate bias. The court noted that the cost of the litigation was out of proportion to the modest claim, and that the case called for a dispassionate consideration of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.