ACEVSKI v VAN KLOOSTER [1990] NSWCA 2

ACEVSKI v VAN KLOOSTER [1990] NSWCA 2

The trial judge was entitled to find a conflict in the evidence and to conclude that the appellant had not discharged the onus of proof; no question of law was raised by the appeal, and any potential errors were at most errors of fact.

Parties
Appellant: Ilija Acevski; Respondent: Mr Van Klooster
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 1990
Procedural Posture
Compensation Appeal / Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Error of Law, Findings of Fact, Appellate Review
Employment Law Workers Compensation Error of Law Findings of Fact Appellate Review

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ilija Acevski

Appellant

Mr Van Klooster

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Compensation Appeal / Final Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's reasoning involved such inconsistencies or errors as to constitute a question of law on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to find a conflict in the evidence and to conclude that the appellant had not discharged the onus of proof; no question of law was raised by the appeal, and any potential errors were at most errors of fact.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.