Todorovic v Moussa

[2001] NSWCA 419

Reported Decision: 53 NSWLR 463

New South Wales

Court of Appeal

CITATION:	Todorovic v Moussa [2001] NSWCA 419
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40418/00
HEARING DATE(S):	4 October 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:	21 November 2001
PARTIES :	Appellant: Dragan Todorovic First Respondent: Charlie Moussa Second Respondent: Charlie Moussa & Sons Constructions Pty Ltd
JUDGMENT OF:	Powell JA at 1; Beazley JA at 2; Sperling J at 61

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	886/97
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Delaney DCJ

COUNSEL:	Appellant: R McLoughlin SC/ R Hanlon Respondent: L King SC
SOLICITORS:	Appellant: Milena Mijatovich Respondent: Riley Gray Spencer
CATCHWORDS:	Judgment - Reasons for judgment - Inadequate reasons - Amendment to judgment after delivery of reasons - Impermissible
LEGISLATION CITED:	Construction Safety Act 1912 (NSW) District Court Rules 1973 (NSW) Pt 2A, r 7
CASES CITED:	Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306 Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 Palmer v Clarke (1989) 19 NSWLR 158 Liberty Investments Pty Limited v Sakatik Pty Limited (unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 30 August 1996) Lam v Beesley (1992) 7 WAR 88 Bar-Mordecai v Rotman [2000] NSWCA 123 DPP v Shirvanian (1998) 44 NSWLR 129 Fuller v The Council of Wagga Wagga (unreported, High Court of Australia, special leave application S247/1999, 14 September 2001)
DECISION:	Appeal allowed

CA 40418/00

DC 886/97

POWELL JA

BEAZLEY JA

SPERLING J

TODOROVIC v MOUSSA & Anor

FACTS
The appellant was injured in an accident which occurred on the second respondent’s building site. The first respondent was the principal of the second respondent. There were two starkly different accounts of how the accident occurred. The appellant said that he had climbed a wooden ladder to speak with a co-worker, and when he went to go back down the ladder, it slipped and he fell on his back onto the concrete floor.

The first respondent claimed that the appellant staged the accident. He said that when the appellant arrived at the site he moved a 22 foot aluminium ladder on to a 45 degree angle and then climbed the ladder. Once on the ladder, the first respondent claimed that the appellant jumped and pulled the ladder onto himself so that he fell onto the concrete floor below. The first respondent maintained that he did not own a wooden ladder and that there was no such ladder at the site. He said that after the appellant fell he asked him for his insurance details.

Both parties had a corroborative witness. The trial judge rejected the account of the accident given by the appellant and his witness and found in favour of the respondents.

HELD per Beazley JA (Powell JA and Sperling J agreeing)
(i) His Honour’s adverse finding in respect of the appellant’s credit was not supported by the evidence…