Singh v Alston Post Pty Ltd - [2011] VSC 534

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2011 01986

MANPREET SINGH	Appellant
v
ALSTON POST PTY LTD (ACN 065 126 203)	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 October 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 October 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Singh v Alston Post Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 534

---

NEGLIGENCE – Appeal from Magistrates’ Court on questions of law – Motor car accident - Whether Magistrate bound to conclude respondent guilty of contributory negligence – Onus on appellant – Magistrate’s conclusion open – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr S Wilmoth	Hall & Wilcox
For the Respondent	Mr A Morrison	Nathan Kuperholz

HIS HONOUR:

This is an appeal on questions of law from a decision of the Magistrates' Court with respect to a claim for property damage caused by a motor vehicle collision, brought pursuant to s 109(1) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989.

On 31 May 2010, Mr Ratnam drove a BMW sedan owned by the respondent out of a golf club driveway into Ross Street, Keysborough. In so doing, he attempted to turn left and proceed down Ross Street. As he was completing the turn manoeuvre, the offside front of the BMW collided with the rear offside wheel of an oncoming truck, driven by the appellant.

The Magistrate found that the collision was caused by the negligence of the appellant. She did so in circumstances where:

(a) Ross Street was closed to truck traffic, and Mr Ratnam's evidence was that he made the turn not expecting truck traffic;

(b) Ross Street is a narrow road and the trees which overhang it are not cut back. This circumstance tends to support the view the truck was travelling in part over the centre of the road;

(c) there was photographic evidence of the situation taken five minutes after the accident, showing debris on the road, tyre marks, the position of the car after the impact and the damage to the car;

(d) the Magistrate preferred Mr Ratnam's evidence to that of the appellant;

(e) Mr Ratnam described moving slowly forward because he was unable to see clearly to his left, due to vegetation adjacent to the driveway exit;

(f) Mr Ratnam said he looked both ways, but he acknowledged that he did not see the truck before the impact; and

(g) Mr Ratnam said he was shocked by the impact.

The appellant's core complaint is contained in ground 2 of the notice of appeal: [1]
[1]Only grounds 2 and 3 of the notice of appeal were pursued.

Having found that:
(a)the plaintiff 'didn't see the truck coming'
In circumstances where the plaintiff:

(b) was making a left-hand turn into Ross Street; and
(c) had an obligation to give way to oncoming traffic
her Honour erred:
(d)by finding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff; and that
(e)the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Singh v Alston Post Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Singh v Alston Post Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 534
Case: [2011] VSC 534
Decision Date: 19 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v Alston Post Pty Ltd involved the appellant, Singh, who sought damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident against the respondent, Alston Post Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the issue of contributory negligence on the part of the respondent. The case was heard in the Magistrates’ Court, and Singh subsequently appealed the decision to a higher court on questions of law.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the Magistrate was bound to conclude that the respondent was guilty of contributory negligence. A secondary issue was the onus of proof resting on the appellant to demonstrate that the respondent was indeed negligent. The court needed to determine if the Magistrate’s conclusion that the respondent was not guilty of contributory negligence was open to challenge, and whether the appeal had merit.

The court found that the Magistrate’s conclusion on the matter of contributory negligence was open and not mandatory. It emphasised that the onus of proof was on the appellant to establish the respondent's negligence. Given that the Magistrate had provided reasons for their decision, and these reasons were reasonable and supported by evidence, the appeal was dismissed. The court held that the Magistrate's conclusion was not unreasonable and was based on a proper application of the law.

No further orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the appeal. The findings confirmed that the Magistrate's assessment of contributory negligence was within their jurisdiction and adequately reasoned.

Orders