Bale & Anor v Mills [2011] NSWCA 226

Bale & Anor v Mills [2011] NSWCA 226

The primary judge's adverse credit and probity findings against Mr Schipp were fatally flawed, as they were based on allegations of dishonesty which were not put to him in cross-examination, contrary to the rule in Browne v Dunn. The evidentiary standard required under Briginshaw was not met. As these flawed findings underpinned the acceptance of the respondent's case, the orders must be set aside and a new trial ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Orders set aside. New trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['fact Finding' 'credibility' 'breach of Browne V Dunn Rule' 'professional Misconduct' 'negligence' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'professional Negligence'] ['fact Finding' 'credibility' 'breach of Browne V Dunn Rule' 'professional Misconduct' 'negligence' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']

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

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in adverse credit findings against a solicitor (Mr Schipp) relating to advice given to a client in settlement negotiations and proper disclosure of errors.' "Whether the primary judge's findings regarding alleged deliberate concealment (Centrelink preclusion period) were permissible where the witness was not cross-examined on the issue (breach of Browne v Dunn)." 'Whether legal standard for proof of serious allegations (Briginshaw standard) was met in absence of cross-examination or sufficient documentary evidence.' 'Whether failure to object to breach of Browne v Dunn constitutes waiver.']

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge's adverse credit and probity findings against Mr Schipp were fatally flawed, as they were based on allegations of dishonesty which were not put to him in cross-examination, contrary to the rule in Browne v Dunn. The evidentiary standard required under Briginshaw was not met. As these flawed findings underpinned the acceptance of the respondent's case, the orders must be set aside and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Orders set aside. New trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Orders of the District Court made on 4 August and 3 September 2010 set aside.' 'There be a new trial.' 'Costs of the District Court proceedings to date abide the outcome of the new trial and be dealt with by the District Court.' "The respondent pay the appellants' costs of the appeal and have a...