DUNN v MARITIME SERVICES BOARD [1998] NSWCA 72

DUNN v MARITIME SERVICES BOARD [1998] NSWCA 72

The trial judge was entitled to reject the medical evidence because it was based on an inaccurate history supplied by the appellant, and was not obliged to accept evidence not subject to cross-examination if contradicted by other evidence. No error of law was demonstrated in her approach to the expert evidence, application of Browne v Dunn, failure to draw a Jones v Dunkel inference, or procedural fairness regarding judicial observation of appellant’s gait.

Parties
Appellant: Colin Dunn; Respondent: Maritime Services Board
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 1998
Procedural Posture
Workers Compensation Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Increase in Loss of Use, Further Lump Sum Payment, Medical Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Application of Browne V Dunn, Jones V Dunkel Inference
Workers Compensation Increase in Loss of Use Further Lump Sum Payment Medical Evidence Procedural Fairness Application of Browne V Dunn Jones V Dunkel Inference

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Dunn

Appellant

Maritime Services Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Workers Compensation Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant suffered increased loss of use of right leg justifying further lump sum payment
  2. 2 Whether trial judge erred in rejecting medical evidence and substituting own opinion
  3. 3 Proper application of rule in Browne v Dunn regarding cross-examination of medical evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to reject the medical evidence because it was based on an inaccurate history supplied by the appellant, and was not obliged to accept evidence not subject to cross-examination if contradicted by other evidence. No error of law was demonstrated in her approach to the expert evidence, application of Browne v Dunn, failure to draw a Jones v Dunkel inference, or procedural fairness regarding judicial observation of appellant’s gait.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs