DANEK V. BARTNICZAK AND ANOTHER

DANEK V. BARTNICZAK AND ANOTHER

The appellate court was not satisfied the trial judge’s assessment of fact was erroneous or not open to him, nor that the damages award was manifestly inadequate, so appellate intervention was not warranted.

Parties
Appellant: Bartniczak; Respondent: Tinicz; Respondent: Another
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 1966
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Damages Assessment, Appeals Procedure
Personal Injury Damages Assessment Appeals Procedure

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

Parties

Bartniczak

Appellant

Tinicz

Respondent

Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the extent of the appellant's injuries and damages
  2. 2 Whether the damages awarded by the trial judge were so inadequate as to warrant appellate intervention

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court was not satisfied the trial judge’s assessment of fact was erroneous or not open to him, nor that the damages award was manifestly inadequate, so appellate intervention was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.