Devries v Australian National Railways Commission [1993] HCA 78

Devries v Australian National Railways Commission [1993] HCA 78

The Full Court was not justified in setting aside the trial judge's finding. The trial judge had observed the plaintiff over a lengthy cross-examination, accepted his evidence as truthful, considered and explained the inconsistencies in earlier statements by reference to pain, confusion and limited written English, and that evidence was supported by other evidence. The plaintiff's account was not glaringly improbable and was not inconsistent with facts incontrovertibly established by the evidence; the Full Court also treated earlier statements as established facts and was mistaken in stating that the first consistent account appeared only in 1988.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Negligence Proceedings for Workplace Personal Injury / High Court Appeal From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'workplace Injury' 'appellate Review of Findings of Fact' 'witness Credibility']
['torts' 'civil Procedure'] ['negligence' 'workplace Injury' 'appellate Review of Findings of Fact' 'witness Credibility']

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

Appeal in Negligence Proceedings for Workplace Personal Injury / High Court Appeal From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia erred in setting aside a trial judge's finding that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendants' negligence where the trial judge had accepted the plaintiff's evidence about how the injury occurred." "Whether inconsistencies between the plaintiff's oral evidence and earlier written statements justified appellate interference with findings based substantially on credibility."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Court was not justified in setting aside the trial judge's finding. The trial judge had observed the plaintiff over a lengthy cross-examination, accepted his evidence as truthful, considered and explained the inconsistencies in earlier statements by reference to pain, confusion and limited written English, and that evidence was supported by other evidence. The plaintiff's account was not glaringly improbable and was not inconsistent with facts incontrovertibly established by the evidence; the Full Court also treated earlier statements as established facts and was mistaken in stating that the first consistent account appeared only in 1988.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Set aside the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.' 'In lieu thereof order that, in respect of grounds 1-4 of the supplementary notice of appeal dated 20 August 1991, the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.' 'Remit the matter to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South...