Legal Research
Cases
Turner v Norwalk Precast Burial Systems Pty Ltd

Turner v Norwalk Precast Burial Systems Pty Ltd

Case [2025] VSCA 94 6 May 2025

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Tort Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2023 0117

GARTH TURNER	Applicant
v
NORWALK PRECAST BURIAL SYSTEMS PTY LTD	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, KENNEDY JJA and J FORREST AJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 March 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 May 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 94
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VCC 1843 (Judge Pillay)

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Procedural fairness – Self-represented litigant – Nature of duty owed by trial judge to self-represented litigant – Respondent succeeded at trial on no case submission – Where applicant evinced misconception that he was entitled to adduce further evidence through respondent’s witnesses – Failure of trial judge to appropriately correct misconception – Appeal allowed.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Action for negligence – Where respondent succeeded on no case submission because applicant unable to establish factual causation under s 51(1)(a) of the Wrongs Act 1958 – Where s 51(2) may have provided alternative means of proving causation – Where failure to explain the terms of s 51(2) – Appeal allowed.

TORTS – Negligence – Causation – Effect of s 51(2) of Wrongs Act 1958 – Meaning of ‘appropriate case’ discussed.

Evidence Act 2008, ss 37, 38; Wrongs Act 1958, s 51.

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420; Doughty-Cowell v Kyriazis [2018] VSCA 216; Oakley v Insurance Manufacturers of Australia Pty Ltd [2008] VSC 68; Powney v Kerang and District Health (2014) 43 VR 506; Roberts v Harkness (2018) 57 VR 334; Strong v Woolworths Ltd (2012) 246 CLR 182; Trkulja v Markovic [2015] VSCA 298, discussed.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr JA Ribbands
Respondent:		Mr S Moloney
Solicitors
Applicant:	(Victorian Bar pro bono scheme)
Respondent:	Barry Nilsson Lawyers

BEACH JA
KENNEDY JA
J FORREST AJA:

The applicant arranged for the installation of a septic tank system on his property in Seaton. He alleges that this system was missing a part — variously described as an ‘aerator arm’, or ‘aerator shaft’ — which caused him to suffer recurrent Helicobacter Pylori (‘HP’) infections, sickness, loss and damage.
The applicant brought a case in negligence and contract against the manufacturer of the septic tank system in the County Court. He alleged that the system was improperly installed and maintained. By the time the matter came to trial, the applicant was self-represented. He gave evidence himself. He also adduced evidence from his friend, Ms Berry, who assisted him at the trial. However, at the conclusion of this evidence, the respondent made a no case submission on the basis that the applicant could not prove his case in respect of causation. More particularly, that he could not prove that the fitting of the aerator arm would have averted his injury.
The judge upheld the no case submission and gave judgment for the respondent.
The applicant now seeks leave to appeal the judge’s decision on the basis of two proposed grounds:
(1)the judge erred in that he failed to provide the…

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 Turner v Norwalk Precast Burial Systems Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Turner v Norwalk Precast Burial Systems Pty Ltd [2025] VSCA 94
Case: [2025] VSCA 94
Decision Date: 6 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Turner v Norwalk Precast Burial Systems Pty Ltd, the Court of Appeal considered a case brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, a precast burial systems company, alleging negligence in the construction of a burial vault. The dispute reached the Court of Appeal after the trial judge dismissed the plaintiff's case at the no case submission stage, finding that the plaintiff could not establish factual causation under section 51(1)(a) of the Wrongs Act 1958. The plaintiff, appearing without legal representation, appealed the trial judge's decision on several grounds, including a perceived failure to provide procedural fairness and an inadequate explanation of the legal standards relevant to the causation requirement.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were primarily concerned with the procedural fairness owed to a self-represented litigant and the correct application of the statutory provisions regarding causation in negligence claims. Specifically, the court examined whether the trial judge adequately addressed the plaintiff's misconception that he could adduce further evidence through the defendant's witnesses, and whether the trial judge failed to explain the alternative causation provisions in section 51(2) of the Wrongs Act 1958. The Court of Appeal assessed whether these failures warranted allowing the appeal and overturning the trial judge's decision.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not sufficiently address the plaintiff's misconception about the admissibility of further evidence and failed to explain the alternative causation provisions in section 51(2) of the Wrongs Act 1958. The court held that these omissions constituted a breach of procedural fairness and a misinterpretation of the statutory requirements. Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial judge's decision and remitting the matter for a new trial. This decision underscores the importance of clear communication and procedural fairness in trials involving self-represented litigants, especially in complex statutory contexts.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were to allow the appeal, set aside the trial judge's decision, and remit the matter for a new trial. This outcome highlights the necessity for trial judges to ensure that all parties, particularly those without legal representation, are fully informed of their rights and the legal standards applicable to their case.

Orders