Samantha Scott Ely Webb v Venci Leo Pavicic

Samantha Scott Ely Webb (the appellant) appealed to the Supreme Court of Queensland against a decision of a Master concerning a dispute with Venci Leo Pavicic (the respondent). The Master had made findings regarding the respondent's credit, which formed the basis of the judgment entered for the respondent.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Master's reasons for their findings on the respondent's credit were adequate and sufficiently articulated to support the judgment. The appeal also concerned the appropriate remedy if the Master's findings were found to be inadequate.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master's reasons for their findings on the respondent's credit were inadequate. Consequently, the judgment entered for the respondent was set aside. The Court determined that the matter should be remitted for a re-trial, limited specifically to the question of damages, before a different judge. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.