Steven Germain v Cordina Chicken Farms Pty Limited

Steven Germain (the appellant) appealed an order of the District Court of New South Wales that discharged the jury in his civil trial against Cordina Chicken Farms Pty Limited (the respondent). The appellant sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained at the respondent's factory. During the trial, the appellant's counsel made several references that the respondent argued were prejudicial, including to insurance, a medical report obtained by the defendant but not tendered, and suspicions about an edited video tape. Concurrently, a television program aired a report critical of insurance companies. Following these events, the trial judge discharged the jury and continued the trial without one, ultimately delivering a verdict for the respondent.

The appeal raised several legal issues for determination. The primary questions were whether there was a material connection between the conduct of the appellant's counsel and the television program, whether the trial judge's discretion in discharging the jury had been exercised incorrectly, and whether the judge erred by failing to consider if any prejudice to the respondent had actually occurred or if such prejudice could have been remedied by a direction to the jury.

The appellate court found that the trial judge had erred in discharging the jury. It reasoned that the references made by the appellant's counsel, while potentially improper, did not necessarily create an irremediable prejudice, particularly in light of the television program. The court held that the judge failed to adequately consider whether any prejudice had actually arisen and, crucially, whether a strong direction to the jury could have mitigated any potential harm. The principles applied focused on the high threshold for discharging a jury in civil proceedings and the importance of exploring less drastic measures, such as judicial directions, before resorting to such a significant step.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The orders of the District Court were quashed, and the proceedings were remitted to the District Court for a rehearing. The costs of the initial hearing were to be costs of the cause on the rehearing, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, with a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act available if otherwise entitled.