Young v Cesta-Incani

Case [2007] NSWCA 229

New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: Young v Cesta-Incani & Anor [2007] NSWCA 229
HEARING DATE(S): 14 August 2007
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
4 September 2007
JUDGMENT OF: Ipp JA at 1; Tobias JA at 2; Hoeben J at 71
DECISION: (a) With respect to the notices of motion filed by the appellant on 19 April 2007 and by the first respondent on 9 May 2007, grant an extension of time for the filing and serving by the appellant of an ordinary summons for leave to appeal and by the first respondent of an ordinary summons for leave to cross-appeal; (b) Direct the appellant and the first respondent to file and serve their respective summonses for leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal within 7 days from the date of these orders; (c) Grant leave to the appellant to appeal and to the first respondent to cross-appeal on condition that the notices of appeal and of cross-appeal are filed within 7 days from the date of these orders; (d) Appeal and cross-appeal allowed; (e) Set aside the verdict on the issue of liability in favour of the first respondent entered by Delaney DCJ on 26 October 2006; (f) Remit the proceedings to the District Court for a new trial on the issue of liability and, if necessary, damages; (g) The respondents to pay the appellant’s costs of his summons for leave to appeal and of the appeal but the first respondent to have with respect to the appeal a certificate under the Suitor’s Fund Act 1951 if otherwise qualified; (h) Each party to pay his, her or its costs of the summons for leave to cross-appeal and of the cross-appeal
CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Adequacy of Reasons – Duty to rationally engage with the case presented by each party – Duty to give reasons for preferring one Expert Witness over another
LEGISLATION CITED: N/A
CASES CITED: Archibald v Byron Shire Council (2003) 129 LGERA 311; [2003] NSWCA 292
Beale v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Eckersley v Binnie (1988) 18 Con LR 1
Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 377; [2000] 1 AII ER 373
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; 197 ALR 201; [2003] HCA 22
Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725
Mistral International Pty Ltd v Polstead Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 321
Moylan v Nutrasweet Co [2000] NSWCA 337
The Nominal Defendant v Kostic [2007] NSWCA 14
Papadopoulos v New South Wales Insurance Ministerial Corporation [1999] NSWCA 116
Pledge v Roads and Traffic Authority (2004) 205 ALR 56; [2004] HCA 13
Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon (2005) 79 ALJR 1816; [2005] HCA 57
Whalen v Kogarah Municipal Council [2007] NSWCA 5
Wiki v Atlantis Relocations (NSW) Pty Ltd (2004) 60 NSWLR 127;[2004] NSWCA 174
PARTIES:

Continue reading Young v Cesta-Incani

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Young v Cesta-Incani [2007] NSWCA 229
Case
[2007] NSWCA 229
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the adequacy of the reasons provided by the primary judge in a District Court trial. The appellant, Mr. Young, had brought proceedings against the respondents, Cesta-Incani and others, and the dispute ultimately revolved around the judge's findings on liability.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had failed in their duty to rationally engage with the case presented by each party and, specifically, whether the judge had adequately explained why they preferred the evidence of one expert witness over another.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge's reasons were insufficient. They held that a judge must provide reasons that demonstrate a rational engagement with the evidence and arguments put forward by both sides. Crucially, where expert evidence conflicts, a judge must explain the basis for preferring one expert's opinion over another's, rather than simply stating a preference. Because this duty was not adequately discharged, the Court allowed the appeal and the cross-appeal, setting aside the verdict on liability and remitting the matter for a new trial on liability and, if necessary, damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

(a) With respect to the notices of motion filed by the appellant on 19 April 2007 and by the first respondent on 9 May 2007, grant an extension of time for the filing and serving by the appellant of an ordinary summons for leave to appeal and by the first respondent of an ordinary summons for leave to cross-appeal; (b) Direct the appellant and the first respondent to file and serve their respective summonses for leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal within 7 days from the date of these orders; (c) Grant leave to the appellant to appeal and to the first respondent to cross-appeal on condition that the notices of appeal and of cross-appeal are filed within 7 days from the date of these orders; (d) Appeal and cross-appeal allowed; (e) Set aside the verdict on the issue of liability in favour of the first respondent entered by Delaney DCJ on 26 October 2006; (f) Remit the proceedings to the District Court for a new trial on the issue of liability and, if necessary, damages; (g) The respondents to pay the appellant's costs of his summons for leave to appeal and of the appeal but the first respondent to have with respect to the appeal a certificate under the Suitor's Fund Act 1951 if otherwise qualified; (h) Each party to pay his, her or its costs of the summons for leave to cross-appeal and of the cross-appeal

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.