Saad v Fares

The appeal concerned a claim for damages for bodily injury arising from a dog attack. The appellant, Mr Saad, alleged that the respondents, Mr and Mrs Fares and their children, were liable for his injuries under both the *Companion Animals Act 1998* (NSW) and in negligence. The primary judge found in favour of the respondents, dismissing Mr Saad's claim. Mr Saad appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in failing to provide adequate reasons for his findings, particularly concerning the credibility of witnesses and the application of the *Companion Animals Act*, and whether the evidence was capable of sustaining a finding of negligence against the occupiers of the property where the attack occurred, even though they were not present at the time. The court also considered the implications of the primary judge's finding that the appellant's witnesses had fabricated evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the primary judge had failed to provide sufficient reasons for his decision, which prevented a proper understanding of how he reached his conclusions, especially regarding the assessment of witness credibility and the application of the statutory provisions. The court held that the primary judge's finding that the appellant's witnesses had fabricated evidence was a serious matter that required clear and cogent reasons, which were absent. Consequently, the court set aside the original verdicts and judgments and ordered a retrial of each proceeding in the District Court.