1. Appeal allowed; 2. Set aside the judgment and orders made in the Court below; 3. Order that the matter be remitted to the District Court for rehearing; 4. Order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal. The respondent is to have a certificate under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951; 5. Order that the costs of the first trial abide the outcome of the rehearing in the District Court and be in the discretion of the trial judge on the rehearing.
CATCHWORDS:
JUDGES AND COURTS - judicial obligation to make findings of fact on proved evidence - assumption by a judge that his/her knowledge of any particular matter is correct judicial review – procedural fairness - EVIDENCE - witnesses - assessment of the credit of a witness- assessment based on wrong factual findings - EVIDENCE - witnesses - assessment of the credit of a witness- reliance on individual judge’s own medical knowledge
Jovan Strinic (Appellant) Ravindra Singh (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S):
CA 40479/07
COUNSEL:
B Toomey QC; G Bateman (Appellant) D Russell SC; M Vesper; S Bouveng (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:
Martin Bell & Co (Appellant) Feguson-Bolten Lawyers (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
2362/04
LOWER COURTJUDICIAL OFFICER:
Neilson DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
29 June 2007
- 43 -
CA 40479/07
BEAZLEY JA IPP JA BASTEN JA
19 February 2009
Jovan Strinic v Ravindra Singh
Headnote
On 8 March 2000, Mr Strinic was injured in a motor vehicle accident when a vehicle collided with the rear of his vehicle. Mr Strinic brought proceedings against…
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 Strinic v Singh
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Strinic v Singh [2009] NSWCA 15
Case
[2009] NSWCA 15
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a dispute between the appellant, Mr Strinic, and the respondent, Mr Singh, heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The core of the disagreement revolved around the trial judge's findings of fact and assessment of witness credit, which the appellant argued were vitiated by errors of law.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge had breached their judicial obligation to make findings of fact based solely on the evidence presented. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the judge had improperly relied on their own personal knowledge, including medical knowledge, in assessing the evidence and the credit of witnesses, rather than confining themselves to the proved facts. The central legal issue was whether such reliance constituted a denial of procedural fairness.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred by making findings of fact that were not supported by the evidence and by relying on personal knowledge, including medical knowledge, in assessing the credibility of witnesses. This approach was held to be contrary to the fundamental principles of procedural fairness, which require judicial decision-making to be based on the evidence presented by the parties. The court concluded that the judge's assessment of credit was therefore flawed.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The judgment and orders of the Court below were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the District Court for a rehearing. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, with a certificate granted under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951. The costs of the first trial were to abide the outcome of the rehearing.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed; 2. Set aside the judgment and orders made in the Court below; 3. Order that the matter be remitted to the District Court for rehearing; 4. Order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. The respondent is to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951; 5. Order that the costs of the first trial abide the outcome of the rehearing in the District Court and be in the discretion of the trial judge on the rehearing.