Warry v PB Pty Ltd

Case [1999] QCA 154


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Warry v P B P/L [1999] QCA 154
PARTIES:

IAN DOUGLAS WARRY
(Plaintiff/Appellant)

v

P B PTY LTD  ACN 009 976 836
(Defendant/Respondent)

FILE NO/S: Appeal No 6298 of 1998
DC No 1284 of 1995
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Appeal against action for damages for personal injuries
ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 10 December 1999
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 8 November 1999
JUDGES: Davies and Pincus JJA and Atkinson J
ORDER: Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE – ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER MATTERS

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IN GENERAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE – WHERE NEW TRIAL WOULD LEAD TO SAME RESULT

Appeal against judgment dismissing action for damages for personal injuries – appellant leased premises from respondent – alleged fell down stairs due to lack of handrail – conflicting evidence of employees that injury occurred in the course of a water fight and not due to lack of handrail – judge below rejected appellant's account – judge below admitted evidence of appellant's prior conviction – whether evidence of conviction admissible – s 252 Corrective Services Act 1988 – whether evidence of charge admissible – s 5(3) Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 – whether relevant to witness' credit – other evidence to justify judge's conclusion that appellant was an unreliable witness – whether appellant entitled to a new trial

Corrective Services Act 1988, s 252
Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986, s 5
Kabadanis v Panagiotou (1980) 47 FLR 221, applied
Vocisano v Vocisano (1974) 130 CLR 267, applied

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCE

Appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence – whether could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial – whether would probably have had an important influence on the result of the trial – whether credible

Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 QdR 404, applied
Langdale v Danby [1982] 1 WLR 1123, applied

COUNSEL: Appellant appeared on his own behalf
Mr J B Rolls for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Appellant appeared on his own behalf
Bennett & Philp for the respondent
  1. THE COURT:  This is an appeal against a judgment given in the District Court on 12 June 1998 dismissing an action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant respondent.  It was accepted by the learned trial judge, who otherwise rejected the appellant's version of events, that on 6 December 1993 the appellant fell down some concrete steps inside the front door of a warehouse.  It is also common ground that the warehouse was owned by the respondent and the appellant had…

Continue reading Warry v PB Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Warry v PB Pty Ltd [1999] QCA 154
Case
[1999] QCA 154
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Warry v PB Pty Ltd involves the appellant, who leased premises from the respondent, bringing an action for damages for personal injuries. The appellant alleged that she fell down the stairs due to the lack of a handrail. The respondents maintained that the injury was caused by a water fight among the employees and not due to the absence of a handrail. The trial judge dismissed the appellant's claim, rejecting her account of events and accepting the respondents' evidence. The judge also admitted evidence of the appellant's prior conviction, which the appellant argued was inadmissible under sections 252 of the Corrective Services Act 1988 and 5(3) of the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986. The appellant contended that the admission of this evidence was an error that led to a miscarriage of justice and sought a new trial.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of the appellant's prior conviction was admissible, and if so, whether it was relevant to her credibility. The appellant argued that the evidence was inadmissible and prejudicial, potentially influencing the judge's decision unfairly. The court also needed to determine if the trial judge's rejection of the appellant's account was justified based on the other evidence presented, and if the admission of the prior conviction evidence led to a miscarriage of justice that warranted a new trial.

The court found that the evidence of the appellant's prior conviction was indeed inadmissible under the relevant sections of the Corrective Services Act and the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act. However, the court held that the judge's decision to reject the appellant's account was supported by other evidence that demonstrated her unreliability as a witness. The court concluded that even if the inadmissible evidence had not been considered, the outcome would likely have been the same. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the order was that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.