REDPATH v HADID [2004] NSWCA 295

REDPATH v HADID [2004] NSWCA 295

The majority held that the evidence that the respondent's vehicle came to rest opposite Staples Street was unchallenged and made the finding that the point of impact was near Wolli Street inevitable. Ms Dunn's evidence, though honest, carried little weight because she could not see the prime mover's position. The trial Judge's preference for the respondent's account was open, and the evidence about the appellant's log book, speeding and rest periods was treated as credibility evidence rather than impermissible tendency evidence. No error was shown in the finding of contributory negligence or the 85/15 apportionment, so both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Motor Vehicle Collision Negligence Proceedings for Damages for Personal Injuries / Appeal and Cross Appeal From District Court New Trial Limited to Liability
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['motor Vehicle Negligence' 'point of Impact' 'credibility Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'contributory Negligence' 'appellate Review of Factual Findings']
['tort Law' 'evidence Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['motor Vehicle Negligence' 'point of Impact' 'credibility Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'contributory Negligence' 'appellate Review of Factual Findings']

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

Motor Vehicle Collision Negligence Proceedings for Damages for Personal Injuries / Appeal and Cross Appeal From District Court New Trial Limited to Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial Judge erred in finding the point of impact was near the mouth of Wolli Street rather than near the Bexley Golf Course clubhouse.' "Whether the trial Judge erred in finding that the appellant's vehicle crossed the centre line." "Whether the trial Judge improperly relied on evidence of the appellant's character as a driver or tendency evidence in breach of the Evidence Act 1995." "Whether the trial Judge failed to give proper weight to Ms Dunn's evidence." 'Whether the apportionment of contributory negligence at 15 per cent against the respondent should be increased or set aside.']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the evidence that the respondent's vehicle came to rest opposite Staples Street was unchallenged and made the finding that the point of impact was near Wolli Street inevitable. Ms Dunn's evidence, though honest, carried little weight because she could not see the prime mover's position. The trial Judge's preference for the respondent's account was open, and the evidence about the appellant's log book, speeding and rest periods was treated as credibility evidence rather than impermissible tendency evidence. No error was shown in the finding of contributory negligence or the 85/15 apportionment, so both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.' 'Cross-appeal dismissed with costs.']