ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
RUDDICK v HSEIH & ANOR (Appeal) [2022] ACAT 14
AA 40/2021 (XD 315/2021)
Catchwords: APPEAL – civil dispute – motor vehicle accident – rear end collision – liability – whether original decision maker failed to consider contributory negligence and the Road Rules – whether respondent in stationary vehicle on highway behind banked up traffic had duty to warn other road users – claim for damages for car, towing, iPad and storage costs – whether evidence supported quantum – whether original decision maker took into account irrelevant considerations – whether original decision maker disregarded relevant considerations – whether original decision maker showed bias – appeal dismissed – application for costs against appellant’s solicitor dismissed
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 7, 22, 32, 48, 79, 82
Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 ss 102, 186, 188, 189
Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) (repealed) s 198J
Magistrates Court Act 1930 pt 4.2
Subordinate
Legislation cited: Road Transport (Road Rules) Regulation 2017 rr 121, 125, 177, 221
ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Transitional Provisions) Regulation 2009 r 30
Cases cited:ACN 120 452 744 Pty Ltd v Newham Business Brokers Pty Ltd & Anor [2021] ACAT 37
Appellants v Council of the Law Society of the ACT and The Legal Practitioner [2011] ACTSC 133
Australian Capital Territory v Wang [2019] ACAT 65
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (H. L.)
Bryant v Peaghman and Another (1987) 5 MVR 347
Calderbank v Calderbank (1973) 3 All ER 333
Campbell v Blackshaw & Evans [2017] ACAT 64CIC Australia Ltd v ACT Planning and Land Authority & Ors [2013] ACTSC 96
Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17
Council of the Sutherland Shire v Heyman [1985] HCA 41
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562
Dwyer v Paffas and Another (1985) 2 MVR 505
Dzundza v Nielsen [2013] ACTSC 220
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63
Excel Intelligent Pty Ltd v Thomson [2018] ACAT 4 Government Insurance Office (NSW) v Wolska-Gromek (1991) 13 MVR 547
Giusida Pty Ltd v Commissioner for ACT Revenue [2016] ACTSC 275
House v R [1936] HCA 40
In the Matter of AB [2018] ACAT 18
In the matter of a notice of motion filed on behalf of Colin George Dunstan [2000] ACTSC 33
Kenny v Ritter [2009] SASC 139
Kleidon v Fuller and Others (1989) 10 MVR 239
Kollas v Scurrah [2008] NSWCA 17
Lanfranchi & Owners of Units Plan 806 [2011] ACAT 83
Lemoto v Able Technical Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 153
Maiolo v Hansen (1989) 10 MVR 200
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25
Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725
Nance v British Columbia Electric Railway Company Ltd [1951] AC 601
Nouri v ACT (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 328Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 34
Rathchime Pty Ltd v Willat [2017] NSWCATAP 87Ticehurst v Skeen (1986) 3 MVR 307
Tam v Du [2019] ACAT 94
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ruddick v Hseih & Anor (Appeal) 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
- [2022] ACAT 14
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the original decision maker failed to consider contributory negligence and the Road Rules, whether the respondent had a duty to warn other road users, if the evidence supported the quantum of damages claimed, and whether the original decision maker took into account irrelevant considerations, disregarded relevant considerations, or showed bias. The appeal focused on whether the Tribunal's decision was correct in law and if the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the evidence.
In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the original decision maker had not erred in law and had properly considered the evidence presented. The court held that the Tribunal had correctly assessed the contributory negligence and the application of the Road Rules. The court also determined that the respondent in the stationary vehicle did not have a duty to warn other road users under the circumstances. The evidence did not sufficiently support the quantum of damages claimed by Mr. Ruddick. Furthermore, the court found no basis for the allegations of irrelevant considerations, disregarded relevant considerations, or bias on the part of the original decision maker.
The court dismissed the appeal and also dismissed the respondents' application for an order that the appellant's solicitor personally pay the respondents' costs. This decision upheld the original ruling of the Tribunal and clarified the legal principles involved in determining liability and damages in motor vehicle accidents.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal orders that:
1.
Leave is granted to the appellant to rely on the two photos annexed to the application filed 20 September 2021 as evidence.
2.
The respondents’ application for interim or other orders filed 28 September 2021 being withdrawn is dismissed.
3.
Pursuant to section 82(1)(b) of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 the appeal be heard as a review of all or part of the original decision.
4.
Order 1 of 16 August 2021 staying Order 3 of 4 August 2021 in XD 315/2021 is discharged.
5.
The appeal is dismissed.
6.
The respondents’ application for an order that the appellant’s solicitor personally pay the respondents’ costs is dismissed.
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.