BRYAN v PRINCE AND ANOR [1992] NSWCA 32
The defendant was not negligent as found by the Master; any factual errors did not warrant overturning the findings of credibility and fact. The weight of expert evidence and factual disputes did not justify appellate intervention. The Master's findings, including on the credibility of the parties, were neither in error sufficient to warrant reversal nor unsupported by the evidence.
- Parties
- Appellant: Bryan; Respondent: Prince; Respondent's Solicitor: Creagh and Creagh; Appellant's Solicitor: Ebsworth and Ebsworth
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 17 March 1992
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Decision on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Negligence, Fact Finding, Weight of Expert Evidence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bryan
Appellant
Prince
Respondent
Creagh and Creagh
Respondent's Solicitor
Ebsworth and Ebsworth
Appellant's Solicitor
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in connection with the motor vehicle accident
- 2 Whether errors in findings of fact by the Master offset his advantage of seeing witnesses
- 3 Weight to be given to expert evidence regarding the location of the collision and the plaintiff's body
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant was not negligent as found by the Master; any factual errors did not warrant overturning the findings of credibility and fact. The weight of expert evidence and factual disputes did not justify appellate intervention. The Master's findings, including on the credibility of the parties, were neither in error sufficient to warrant reversal nor unsupported by the evidence.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment