Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Simoes v Kel Campbell Pty Ltd; Simoes v Moon [2018] NSWCA 284 Hearing dates: 21 May 2018 Decision date: 22 November 2018 Before: McColl JA at [1];
Basten JA at [2];
Lonergan J at [47]Decision: In each matter:
(1) Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
(2) Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs.Catchwords: APPEALS – leave to appeal – applicant purported to file notices of appeal as of right when leave required – summons seeking leave filed out of time on day of hearing – whether extension of time to file leave summons should be granted – whether leave to appeal should be granted
EVIDENCE – admissions – civil proceedings – applicant claimed to have green light when entering intersection – applicant made admission to the contrary to police in interview – notebook entry regarding interview admitted without objection – whether evidence of admission should have been excluded on basis it was influenced by violent, oppressive, inhuman or degrading conduct – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 84
EVIDENCE – medical records – clinical notes included history of motor vehicle accident seemingly inconsistent with applicant’s evidence – clinical notes tendered by applicant without explanation or reservation – whether trial judge approached medical records with appropriate caution – Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320 referred toLegislation Cited: District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 127
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 84Cases Cited: Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320 Category: Principal judgment Parties: 2017/262699:
2017/262706:
Americo Nuno Simoes (Applicant)
Kel Campbell Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Americo Nuno Simoes (Applicant)
Brian Vincent Moon (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
S Wheelhouse SC/J E Doyon (Applicant)
M Claridge (Kel Campbell Pty Ltd)
J Turnbull SC/B Wilson (Brian Moon)
CMC Lawyers (Applicant)
KPL Lawyers (Kel Campbell Pty Ltd)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Brian Moon)
File Number(s): 2017/262699; 2017/262706 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Date of Decision:
- 1 September 2017
- Before:
- Gibb DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2016/38448; 2016/191492
Judgment
-
McCOLL JA: I agree with Basten JA’s reasons and the orders his Honour proposes.
-
BASTEN JA: Bestic Street, Rockdale runs west from the Grand Parade at Brighton-Le-Sands until it meets the Princes Highway. There is a major intersection some halfway along its length where it crosses West Botany Street. On the afternoon of Saturday, 20 December 2014 the applicant, Americo Nuno Simoes, had driven south past the airport and turned right into Bestic Street, heading west. Brian Vincent Moon was driving a petrol tanker north on West Botany Street. At the intersection of Bestic Street and West Botany Street the tanker collided with the passenger side of Mr Simoes’ vehicle. The intersection was controlled by traffic lights.
-
On 5 February 2016 the owner of the prime mover, Kel Campbell Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against Mr Simoes in relation to the damage caused to the tanker. A defence was filed on 31 March 2016. On 23…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Simoes v Kel Campbell Pty Ltd; Simoes v Moon 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
- [2018] NSWCA 284
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file his summons seeking leave to appeal. Secondly, the Court had to consider whether evidence of an admission made by the applicant to police, which was contrary to his evidence regarding a traffic incident, should have been excluded under section 84 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW) on the grounds that it was influenced by oppressive conduct. The Court also considered the approach taken by the trial judge to medical records that contained information seemingly inconsistent with the applicant's evidence, which had been tendered by the applicant without explanation.
The Court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal. The reasoning for this decision was not detailed in the provided text, but it is clear that the Court found against the applicant on the preliminary issue of leave to appeal and the substantive issues raised. The Court applied principles relating to the granting of extensions of time and the admissibility of evidence, including the provisions of section 84 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW) and the need for caution when dealing with medical records, as referred to in *Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin*.
Consequently, in each matter before the Court, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
In each matter:
(1) Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
(2) Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs.
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.