FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sarri v Gresham [1999] FCA 175
ANDREW NICHOLAS SARRI V ROBERT JOHN GRESHAM
AG 97 of 1998JUDGES: SPENDER, HIGGINS, WEINBERG JJ
DATE: 24 FEBRUARY 1999
PLACE: CANBERRA
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
AG 97 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
ANDREW NICHOLAS SARRI
APPELLANTAND:
ROBERT JOHN GRESHAM
RESPONDENTJUDGES:
SPENDER, HIGGINS, WEINBERG JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
24 FEBRUARY 1999
WHERE MADE:
CANBERRA
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be dismissed.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
AG 97 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
ANDREW NICHOLAS SARRI
APPELLANTAND:
ROBERT JOHN GRESHAM
RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
SPENDER, HIGGINS, WEINBERG JJ
DATE:
24 FEBRUARY 1999
PLACE:
CANBERRA
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The facts or the history of this matter need not be recited.
We can understand the concern of Mr Sarri at having on his record a finding that he had assaulted a patron, notwithstanding the fact that the penalty imposed was, of course, disposition under s556A without conviction. But the difficulty is, that on the evidence before him, the learned Magistrate was entitled to find that there had been no punch thrown by Mr Angelos or indeed any action on his part that could reasonably be so construed. There being no punch, there was no foundation then for any possible defence to the charge of assault by reason of either self-defence or of s88 of the Liquor Act, even if that section was applicable. And it seems to us no error, either on the part of the learned Magistrate or on the part of the Chief Justice in hearing an appeal from the learned Magistrate, has been demonstrated.
We would for those reasons dismiss the appeal.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court. Associate:
Dated: 24 February 1999
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr Richard Thomas Solicitor for the Appellant: Michael Bartlett Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Richard Refshauge Solicitor for the Respondent: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Date of Hearing: 24 February 1999 Date of Judgment: 24 February 1999
- AGLC
- Sarri v Gresham [1999] FCA 175
- Case
- [1999] FCA 175
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the proper interpretation of the contractual term in question, and whether the lower court had applied the correct legal principles in reaching its decision. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the lower court's findings of fact were supported by the evidence presented.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the lower court had correctly interpreted the relevant contractual term and applied the appropriate legal principles. The court also found that the lower court's findings of fact were supported by the evidence. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the original decision of the lower court was upheld.
The court emphasised the importance of a party seeking to appeal a decision to demonstrate that the lower court had made an error in law or fact. In this case, the appellant had not succeeded in demonstrating such an error, and therefore the appeal was unsuccessful. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the original decision of the lower court be upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal be dismissed.
Note:
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.