Traykof v Shanco Holdings Pty Ltd

In Traykof v Shanco Holdings Pty Ltd, the appellant sought to challenge a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria which dismissed their claim for the establishment of a right-of-way over a parcel of land. The respondents, Shanco Holdings Pty Ltd, had argued that the appellant's claim was barred by the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 and that they had adversely possessed the disputed land. The case was appealed on the basis that the trial judge had failed to consider objective evidence that undermined the credibility of the respondents' witness.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's failure to consider objective evidence that undermined the credit of the respondents' witness constituted a material error that warranted the setting aside of the judgment. The appellant argued that the objective evidence pointed to the witness having lied about the adverse possession of the land, and that this undermined the basis of the trial judge's findings. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in assessing the credibility of the witness.

The court held that the trial judge had erred in failing to consider objective evidence that was relevant to the assessment of the witness's credibility. This was a material error as it potentially affected the outcome of the case. The court found that the objective evidence, which included emails and other documents, suggested that the witness had lied about the adverse possession of the land. As a result, the court concluded that the trial judge should have directed a retrial of the case. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for a new trial.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the decision of the Supreme Court be set aside, and the matter be remitted to the Supreme Court for a new trial. The court also directed that the trial judge consider the objective evidence in assessing the credibility of the respondents' witness when the case was retried.