Black v Walker [2000] NSWSC 983

Black v Walker [2000] NSWSC 983

The Supreme Court refused leave to amend the stated case because the proposed apprehended-bias ground was out of time under the applicable legislation and, in any event, disclosed no error. The Magistrate did not err in refusing to reopen the appellant's case, because the proposed evidence should have been called in chief and reopening would unfairly split the case. The challenges to the Magistrate's treatment of the evidence of Malcolm Carr and Mrs Black concerned weight and fact-finding rather than errors of law. The respondent's diary note was properly admitted, and even if admission had been wrong it did not affect the result. No legal error was shown in the Magistrate's verdict for...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Stated Case Pursuant to S 101 of the Justices Act 1902 / Supreme Court Determination of Stated Case From Local Court Proceedings and Application to Amend the Stated Case
Outcome
Summons dismissed; Local Court decision affirmed; appellant to pay respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['stated Case' 'detinue' 'reopening a Case' 'admissibility of Diary Note' 'weight of Evidence' 'apprehended Bias' 'amendment Out of Time']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'torts'] ['stated Case' 'detinue' 'reopening a Case' 'admissibility of Diary Note' 'weight of Evidence' 'apprehended Bias' 'amendment Out of Time']

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

Stated Case Pursuant to S 101 of the Justices Act 1902 / Supreme Court Determination of Stated Case From Local Court Proceedings and Application to Amend the Stated Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Magistrate was correct in allowing cross-examination of the respondent about a conversation with Mrs Marcel Gorman but refusing to allow Mrs Gorman's evidence or reopening of the appellant's case." 'Whether the Magistrate erred in not placing weight on evidence of solicitor Malcolm Carr about a telephone conversation with the respondent.' "Whether the Magistrate erred in admitting and placing weight on the respondent's diary note of 25 June 1994." "Whether the Magistrate erred in not placing weight on Mrs Black's evidence about a telephone conversation with the respondent." 'Whether the Magistrate was correct in entering a verdict for the respondent in light of the evidence.' 'Whether leave should be granted to amend the stated case to raise whether the Magistrate should have disqualified himself for reasonable apprehension of bias.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court refused leave to amend the stated case because the proposed apprehended-bias ground was out of time under the applicable legislation and, in any event, disclosed no error. The Magistrate did not err in refusing to reopen the appellant's case, because the proposed evidence should have been called in chief and reopening would unfairly split the case. The challenges to the Magistrate's treatment of the evidence of Malcolm Carr and Mrs Black concerned weight and fact-finding rather than errors of law. The respondent's diary note was properly admitted, and even if admission had been wrong it did not affect the result. No legal error was shown in the Magistrate's verdict for...

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; Local Court decision affirmed; appellant to pay respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to amend the Stated Case is refused and the Notice of Motion filed 25 June 1997 seeking that relief is dismissed.' 'Questions 1(a), 1(b), 2, (there is no question 3), 4(a), 4(b), 5 and 6 are answered in the negative.' 'The summons is dismissed.' 'Exhibit A is returned to the appellant.' "The appellant is to...