Legal Research
Cases
Reza v Summerhill Orchards Ltd

Reza v Summerhill Orchards Ltd

Case [2013] VSCA 17 15 February 2013

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2012 0034

NASER ALI REZA	Appellant
	v
SUMMERHILL ORCHARDS LTD	Respondent

---

JUDGES	WARREN CJ, HARPER JA and KYROU AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	31 January 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	15 February 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 17
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	(Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Coish, 29 February 2012)

---

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION - Negligence – Jury trial – Closing address of defendant’s counsel – Breach of rule in Browne v Dunn – Comment on plaintiff’s receipt of worker’s compensation – Application to discharge jury refused by trial judge – Duty of trial judge – Applicable principles – Matter corrected by direction from trial judge to jury – Retraction by defendant’s counsel – Counsel’s conduct did not seriously affect the proper conduct of a fair trial – Jury not unfairly influenced – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr C J Blanden with Mr D Seeman	Ryan Carlisle Thomas
For the Respondent	Mr M F Wheelahan SC with Ms R L Kaye	Wisewould Mahony

WARREN CJ:

I have had the benefit of reading in draft form the reasons for judgment of Kyrou AJA. I agree with his Honour, for the reasons that he gives, that the appeal should be dismissed.

HARPER JA:

I also agree with Kyrou AJA.

KYROU AJA:

Introduction and summary

The appellant sued the respondent for damages for an injury to his right knee. He alleged that he sustained the injury when he fell off a ladder in the course of his employment with the respondent as a fruit picker at the respondent’s orchard near Shepparton. After a 10 day trial in the County Court, a jury of six answered ‘no’ to the question of whether any negligence of the respondent was a cause of the appellant’s injury. Judgment was entered for the respondent in accordance with the jury’s verdict.

In his closing address to the jury, senior counsel for the respondent (who did not appear for the respondent on the appeal) made the statement set out at [27] below (‘Impugned Statement’). The Impugned Statement referred to the appellant’s receipt of ‘compensation payments’ and suggested that the jury ‘might think that it lessens his urgency to work’. Such an allegation had not been put to the appellant or to any of his witnesses.

The appellant applied to the trial judge for an order discharging the jury on the basis that the Impugned Statement deprived him of a fair trial. The trial judge refused the application.

The appellant now appeals against the judgment below on the ground that the trial judge erred in refusing the application.

For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the appeal.

The appellant’s case at the County Court trial

The appellant was born on 1 January 1978 and arrived by boat to Australia as a refugee from Afghanistan in 2001. He is illiterate in his first language, Dari, as well as in English.

The appellant commenced…

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 Reza v Summerhill Orchards Ltd

Details

AGLC: Reza v Summerhill Orchards Ltd [2013] VSCA 17
Case: [2013] VSCA 17
Decision Date: 15 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Reza v Summerhill Orchards Ltd involved a dispute between Reza and Summerhill Orchards Ltd over a workplace accident and the subsequent worker’s compensation claim. The case was heard in a court of law where the plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the defendant, leading to physical injury and related damages. Reza sought compensation for injuries sustained in the workplace, and the defendant argued against liability and the extent of damages.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant’s counsel breached professional conduct rules during the closing address and whether this breach prejudiced the fairness of the trial. Specifically, the court had to determine if the comment made by the defendant’s counsel about the plaintiff's receipt of worker’s compensation constituted an improper influence on the jury, potentially undermining the fairness of the proceedings. Additionally, the court assessed the trial judge's response to the situation, including whether the judge adequately corrected any potential prejudice by directing the jury.

The court concluded that while the defendant’s counsel did breach the professional conduct rules by making an inappropriate comment regarding the plaintiff’s worker’s compensation claim, this did not seriously affect the proper conduct of a fair trial. The trial judge appropriately intervened by directing the jury to disregard the comment, thereby mitigating any potential prejudice. The court found that the jury was not unfairly influenced and that the retraction by the defendant’s counsel further mitigated any adverse impact. The appeal against the trial judge's decision was dismissed, affirming the trial judge's handling of the matter.

Orders