SACCA -v- STARINK [2001] WASCA 215
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 215 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:132/2000 | 10 & 11 MAY 2001 | |
| Coram: | ANDERSON J OWEN J WHEELER J | 26/07/01 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JOSEPH SACCA JON STARINK |
Catchwords: | Appeal Evidence Witnesses Credibility No new point of principle |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty Ltd v Watson (1946) 72 CLR 435 Benman v Austin Motor Co Ltd [1955] AC 370 Chandler Bros Ltd v Boswell [1936] 3 All ER 179 Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 174 ALR 585 Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 Connor v Stainton (1924) 27 WALR 72 David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353 Electronic Industries Ltd v David Jones Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 288 Festic v Atkinson, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 8484; 19 September 1990 Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32 H Dakin & Co Ltd v Less [1916] 1 KB 566 Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 All ER 176 Holland v Wiltshire (1954) 90 CLR 409 Jackson v Rotax Motor & Cycle Co [1910] 2 KB 937 Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 NSWLR 723 Ogle v Comboyuro Investments Pty Ltd (1976) 136 CLR 444 Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221 Purcell v Bacon (1914) 19 CLR 241 State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588 Steele v Tardiani (1946) 72 CLR 386 TA Sundell & Sons Pty Ltd v Emm Yannoulatos (Overseas) Pty Ltd (1956) 56 SR (NSW) 323 Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan's Merchandise (Vic) Pty Ltd (1957) 98 CLR 93 Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422 Williamson v Commonwealth (1907) 5 CLR 174 Williamson v Murdoch (1912) 14 WALR 54 Wing Luck Foods v Lay Choo Lim [1989] WAR 358 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : SACCA -v- STARINK [2001] WASCA 215 CORAM : ANDERSON J
- OWEN J
WHEELER J
- Appellant (Plaintiff)
AND
JON STARINK
Respondent (Defendant)
Catchwords:
Appeal - Evidence - Witnesses - Credibility
No new point of principle
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal dismissed
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant (Plaintiff) : Mr S Owen-Conway QC & Mr P Kakulus
Respondent (Defendant) : Mr M J McCusker QC & Mr R A Zilkens
Solicitors:
Appellant (Plaintiff) : Godfrey Virtue & Co
Respondent (Defendant) : Zilkens & Co
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Devries v…
Continue reading Sacca v Starink
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Sacca v Starink [2001] WASCA 215
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 215
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal was brought by the plaintiff, Sacca, against the defendant, Starink, in relation to a dispute involving a contractual agreement. The original case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, and the plaintiff sought to appeal the decision rendered by Justice Byrne in the trial division. The plaintiff contested the outcome, arguing that there were errors in the assessment of witness credibility and evidence, and that there was a new point of principle that should be considered.
The court had to determine whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, and whether there was a new point of principle that should be taken into account. The appeal hinged on the plaintiff's argument that the trial judge had not properly considered the evidence and had erred in his assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. The court examined the evidence presented in the trial and the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. The court also considered whether there was a new point of principle that should be taken into account.
The court found that there was no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. The court held that the trial judge had properly considered the evidence and had not erred in his assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. The court also found that there was no new point of principle that should be taken into account. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the trial judge.
The court had to determine whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, and whether there was a new point of principle that should be taken into account. The appeal hinged on the plaintiff's argument that the trial judge had not properly considered the evidence and had erred in his assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. The court examined the evidence presented in the trial and the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. The court also considered whether there was a new point of principle that should be taken into account.
The court found that there was no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. The court held that the trial judge had properly considered the evidence and had not erred in his assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. The court also found that there was no new point of principle that should be taken into account. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the trial judge.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal 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.