Steven Germain v Cordina Chicken Farms Pty Limited [2002] NSWCA 56

Steven Germain v Cordina Chicken Farms Pty Limited [2002] NSWCA 56

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge erred in principle by discharging the jury without properly considering whether any identified or perceived prejudice could be remedied by less drastic means, such as directions to the jury or limited steps concerning the Professor Mitchell report. The supposed connection between the appellant's counsel's conduct, references to insurance, the edited videotape issue, and the Four Corners programme was too tenuous, and the trial judge failed to make necessary inquiries of the jury before concluding that jury discharge was required.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal in a Workplace Injury Damages Proceeding Concerning Discharge of a Jury / Appeal From District Court Orders After the Trial Continued Without a Jury and Judgment Was Entered for the Respondent
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders below quashed; proceedings remitted to the District Court for rehearing.
Legal Topics
['discharge of Jury in Civil Trial' 'section 79 a of the District Court Act' "prejudice From Counsel's References to Insurance" 'references to Material Not in Evidence' 'appellate Review of Discretionary Procedural Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'personal Injury'] ['discharge of Jury in Civil Trial' 'section 79 a of the District Court Act' "prejudice From Counsel's References to Insurance" 'references to Material Not in Evidence' 'appellate Review of Discretionary Procedural Orders']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal in a Workplace Injury Damages Proceeding Concerning Discharge of a Jury / Appeal From District Court Orders After the Trial Continued Without a Jury and Judgment Was Entered for the Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's exercise of discretion to discharge the jury and continue without a jury miscarried." "Whether there was a material connecting link between counsel's references to insurance or the edited videotape and the Four Corners programme about insurance companies." 'Whether the trial judge failed to consider whether any prejudice to the respondent had been shown.' 'Whether the trial judge failed to consider whether any prejudice could be cured by directions to the jury or other less drastic steps.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge erred in principle by discharging the jury without properly considering whether any identified or perceived prejudice could be remedied by less drastic means, such as directions to the jury or limited steps concerning the Professor Mitchell report. The supposed connection between the appellant's counsel's conduct, references to insurance, the edited videotape issue, and the Four Corners programme was too tenuous, and the trial judge failed to make necessary inquiries of the jury before concluding that jury discharge was required.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders below quashed; proceedings remitted to the District Court for rehearing.

Orders

  • ['Order allowing the appeal.' 'Order that the orders below be quashed.' 'Order remitting the proceedings to the District Court for rehearing.' 'Order that costs of the initial hearing be costs of the cause on the rehearing.' "Order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and receive a certificate...