AUSTRALIAN DYERS AND BLEACHERS PTY LTD v WILLIAM ROBERTS [1989] NSWCA 9

AUSTRALIAN DYERS AND BLEACHERS PTY LTD v WILLIAM ROBERTS [1989] NSWCA 9

The trial judge did not err in refusing the adjournment; there was no material before him showing a denial of justice would result, and the defendant’s advisers demonstrated by their conduct that they did not regard Dr Scarf’s evidence as essential. The verdict was not excessive as there was evidence justifying the damages awarded, and the trial judge’s summing up was not unfair.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Australian Dyers and Bleachers Pty Ltd; Respondent/plaintiff: William Roberts
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Exercise of Discretion, Jury Trial, Damages
Civil Procedure Adjournment Exercise of Discretion Jury Trial Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Dyers and Bleachers Pty Ltd

Appellant/defendant

William Roberts

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of an adjournment by the trial judge constituted an error causing injustice.
  2. 2 Whether the jury's verdict for damages was excessive.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in refusing the adjournment; there was no material before him showing a denial of justice would result, and the defendant’s advisers demonstrated by their conduct that they did not regard Dr Scarf’s evidence as essential. The verdict was not excessive as there was evidence justifying the damages awarded, and the trial judge’s summing up was not unfair.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.