State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Brown

The State Rail Authority of New South Wales appealed a decision of the trial judge concerning a claim brought by Mr Brown. Mr Brown had been injured when the train he was travelling on suddenly braked, causing him to be thrown from his seat. The primary dispute concerned whether Mr Brown had suffered a neck injury in the accident, complicated by a previous work injury. The appeal court comprised Giles JA, Santow JA, and Basten JA.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the trial judge erred in preferring the evidence of an expert witness who was cross-examined over the evidence of an expert whose report was not subjected to cross-examination. Additionally, the court considered whether the rule in *Browne v Dunn* had been infringed and whether the cross-examination of a witness was prematurely stopped. Finally, the court had to determine whether rehabilitation expenses, required under the *Workers Compensation Act*, were "reasonably necessary" in the context of the negligence claim.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of the cross-examined expert, Dr Spittaler, over the un-cross-examined expert, Dr Millons, particularly as Dr Millons may not have had access to all relevant information regarding Mr Brown's symptoms. The court also concluded that the rule in *Browne v Dunn* was not infringed and that the cross-examination was not improperly curtailed. Regarding the rehabilitation expenses, the court agreed with the trial judge that such expenses could be considered a reasonably foreseeable loss for a public transport service, irrespective of whether they were strictly "reasonably incurred" in the conventional sense.

The appeal was dismissed, and the State Rail Authority was ordered to pay Mr Brown's costs.